Is God Self-Evident

"God is self-evident because the Bible says so."Think about it.

The post was directed at someone else who believes the Bible to tell it as it is.Context.Think about it.

So therefore the author is speaking as if God is ordering a command to slaughter children, but God wouldn't actually do that? Not only is that not true, but it brings the whole infallibility question in to disrepute.What I gather is that you don't believe that God would ever actually condone such behavior because it's just a song. What about these:

quote:

---

Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. - Isaiah 13:15-18

---

quote:

---

The glory of Israel will fly away like a bird, for your children will die at birth or perish in the womb or never even be conceived. Even if your children do survive to grow up, I will take them from you. It will be a terrible day when I turn away and leave you alone. I have watched Israel become as beautiful and pleasant as Tyre. But now Israel will bring out her children to be slaughtered." O LORD, what should I request for your people? I will ask for wombs that don't give birth and breasts that give no milk. The LORD says, "All their wickedness began at Gilgal; there I began to hate them. I will drive them from my land because of their evil actions. I will love them no more because all their leaders are rebels. The people of Israel are stricken. Their roots are dried up; they will bear no more fruit. And if they give birth, I will slaughter their beloved children." - Hosea 9:11-16

---

quote:

---

"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all — old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told." - Ezekiel 9:5-7

---

quote:

---

If even then you remain hostile toward me and refuse to obey, I will inflict you with seven more disasters for your sins. I will release wild animals that will kill your children and destroy your cattle, so your numbers will dwindle and your roads will be deserted. - Leviticus 26:21-22

---

Are these all songs too?Do you have an excuse why murder, infanticide, rape, and torture is not only condoned, but commanded? If those songs merely talking about nationalistic poison is tragic, what must you think when God says it? Clearly it hasn't since I have more than sufficiently substantiated my argument at this point. So then you assert that the bible is not infallible, in which case, how is it that you use them to make a point in your arguments?If the bible is not infallible, then how do you know which one's are accurate and come from God versus which one's are written by man to suit man's agendas?How is that any different from Al Qaeda who claims to be doing God's work when they slaughter people in his holy name? If you want my honest opinion, I think none of it actually comes from God. I think the scriptures are man's invention to give power and credence to their own agendas, just like all the pagan religions before them.If you really want to assert that God didn't command such things because the Psalms are a collection of poems, know that I don't buy it for a second, but I'll allow you a small victory. You can have the Psalm argument since the bible is chock full of unambiguous instances where God revels in unspeakable atrocities. It's in the bible, Bailey, you know, the most beloved collection of books in the world, which is the supposed to be the very Word of God. You can minimize this if you want, but I think you and I both know the significance of this. How would you know either way? The bible is what is used to know the mind of God. If it is fallible, then what you think you know about God is therefore nullified by your own admission.See the dilemma with it? If you go the infallible route, you have to suffer the consequences for all the ugly and contradictory verses in the bible and try to make excuses for them. If you go the fallible route, you emasculate the entire bible, for how would you know which scriptures are from God and which are from men claiming to be from God?It's a no-win situation, friend. I for one am not envious of your position.

---

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

E writes: HG writes:No Im asking why if it is morally ok to kill ants and you feel no moral why are you attacking God? Whats does this have to do with that point? These two points make no sense to the issue You only had one very repedative question and I answered it over and over and over. I agree, there is no ambiguity and it is clear what the writers are talking about, two DIFFERENT areas of punishment involving the same groups of people. Ignoring this will not help your case. Here is another way of looking at it. Of what value would it BE for God to tell people in the Ezekiel text that they are going to die,(that is physically) when they already KNOW that they are going to die anyway. It should be clear from that point alone that Ezekiel is not talking about physical death BUT spiritual death and he is saying he will not hold the children responsible to this extent, which does not exclude physical punishment in for the samething. your slowly getting buried here HG.Further and that which buries your case even more, people did not die immediately when they did sin
in these instances, Ezekiel was not talking about physical death, or physical punishment, something that Moses or God WAS talking about in THE EXODUS text. there is no contradiction and there is certainly no ambiguity, it is to easy to mis for someone that is actually looking.HG writes:Simply because they are talking about SIN and its entailments does not mean that it has to be specific to one area OR TYPE of sin or one area or type of punishment. so since the writers are talking about two different areas of punishment, you now have answered the question in the affirmative.Wild interpretations???. Ive only had ONE since the discussion began, that the writers are CLEARLY talking about two different areas of punishment for the same two groups of people. Again what would be the purpose or the point of telling someone they are going to die, if they already know that in the first place. It makes since to tell Adam since he did not know what death was, and he was tooling along immortaliy until he ate the fruit, BUT it would make no SENSE to these people since they knew they were going to die whether they sinned or NOT. The writer must have had another form of punishment in mind
Ah, but they DO contradict. Ezekiel SPECIFICALLY says that only the sinner pays for their sins, whereas Exodus SPECIFICALLY says that other people pay for the sins of the father.Now since he was going to visit the inquities fo the fathers on the generations, that would mean they would have to alive for that to be fullfilled. Since it makes no sense to tell someone they are going to die when they already know that, Ezekiel was talking about punishment after physical death. Or now, understand this, God was speaking from a spiritual standpoint through inspiration. Do you feel the nails going into the coffin HG? Ah but they dont contradict. Ezekiel says the SOULLLLLLLL that sinneth it will die. Remember the second death mentioned in Revelations and jesus talking about what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? these are things that happen after physical death. Moses is talking about physical punishmentPurpledawn writes:No it is not and I have demonstrated this without question?PD writes:According to liberal scholars, yes one may place this at that date.I will address PDs statements here since they fit into the conversation. Even given the idea that the after life may have been a later concept, you are assuming he was not influnced by the direct operation of the Holy Spirit, which makes known information not otherwise available. Since we are clearly talking about God and the afterlife, since he resides in the afterlife and reveals this information to those writers, perhaps you could provide evidence he was not speaking through inspiration of God.Hmmmm look at Ezekiel 2 verse 2. "And the Spirit entered into me and spake unto me"........ I doubt these people were not aware of such concepts but then we would have to get rid of nearly the whole book wouldnt we PD.If your not going to be logical atleast try and be reasonable. Ezekiel believes God is speaking to him, he believes the Spirit enters him. Where would you say he believes God is PD? It is unimaginable that you would put forth an idea such as this PD. In human history it is hard to imagine a time when people did not believe in an afterlife, notwithstanding the fact that some always did not, does not mean that it was not primarily believed as in ezekiel. give me a break PDLets assume he is not talking about spiritual death, which from Gods concept and Ezekiels through inspiration his is. But lets assume for a moment he is not. Ezekiel is speaking about the end result of the iniquity the totality and summation to the point of death or the result of the sin RESULTING IN DEATH, due to continual sin without repentance, it would not change the point. God will hold the Father accountable finally for his sins, yet this would have nothing to do with what God can and will do presently as well. Ezekiels focus is the totality and finality of a persons life and what will happen as a result of that, whether it is death physically or as I believe death spiritually,, a JUDGEMENT.In either instance this is not what Moses is speaking about, he is addressing an ongoing life and how God will deal with continued present, active and living sin, not the ultimate consequences. When Ezekiel says, "bare the iniquity of the father", he means the ultimate price the son will not bare. Speaking of the father he says in verse 18 of 18 he will die in his iniqutiy, an utimate RESPONSIBILITY, no doubt refering to spiritual death, however, this does and is not speaking to what he can will do presently. Surely, anyone can see this simple point and there is no contradiction.My son may pay for all of my sins presently, but ultimatley I will have to answer to the Law for my crimes not him, correct? God as a supreme judge is saying i will do both, I will punish both for different reasons. Actually these verse are sister verses and actually clarify and complement eachother. again even if we remove the spiritual physical death thingy, they are not talking about the samething. One is addressing the totality of and end result of Sin, Moses is speaking of about how he will deal with continued ONGOING sin and how he will punish that. In either instance there is no contradiction and you are wrong in your estimation. so all the blathering about what they knew or didnt know is wrong in the first place and secondly, the type of punishment and when and what for is the primary issue.Ezekiels pronouncement of how God will deal with the totality of a mans sins individually and that result should in no way cause confusion about how he can and will deal with the same mans sins actively and presently. As a judge he can deal with sin as he sees fit from omnipotent standpoint. At bare minimum these verse are not in violation or conflict and I defy any person to show otherwise, excluding saying "I dont Like That" But dont you see HG your a walking talking inconsistent illogical monster to accuse God of crimes you no doubt each summer commit without conscience. but after all of this it is your responsibility to show how an omnipotent omniscient God can be wrong about anything. Now I dont mean just say you disagree with it, I MEAN show logical inconsistencey, Have funIll get to the rest of your post laterEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

quote:

---

So therefore the author is speaking as if God is ordering a command to slaughter children, but God wouldn't actually do that? Not only is that not true, but it brings the whole infallibility question in to disrepute.

---

I wondered where the baby smashing issue was pulled from. I agree with Bailey in that this song is not an order from God. It is a lament.The Psalmist is writing from the perspective of having returned home and looking back at the exile. The Psalmist gave up his music making occupation in captivity.The line about the baby bashing is a poet's expression of anger. Just as Edom was happy the day Jerusalem was destroyed, this poet will be happy to see their captors received the treatment he describes, which makes one wonder if that's what happened to some of the Jewish children when Jerusalem fell.This song does not contain an order from God. Just a angry poet wishing bad things upon those who ruined their lives.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

EMA, you have NOT in any sense substantiated that the two verses are talking about different kinds of punishment, not that it matters anyhow. The issue, for the millionth and last time, is that the two verses contradict how God deals with sin.The second issue is specifically with Exodus, where God punishes relatives for the sins of the father. Not only does it contradict Ezekiel but it's really messed up for other people to suffer for our relatives.Your position has now changed, as you initially tried to excuse it away by saying that there are temporal consequences for sin. But that's not what it says, does it?!?! It says that God will punish up to the 3rd and 4th generation.Sensing the utter futility in trying to defend such a weak position, you now have changed tactics saying that they are two different kinds of punishment, as if that made a fucking difference even if you could substantiate it, since the issue is that INNOCENT people are being punished!Understand? I hope so because this is the very last time I go over it with you. The issue is that people are paying for SINS they never committed according to this blatant discrepancy. Seriously, why is that so hard a concept to grasp? You saying that the punishment is different (which you do NOT know) doesn't take away the contradiction nor does alleviate your position. He didn't know that, Adam had to be told BEFORE as a warning not to do it. Not that it matters, since, again, Ezekiel says only the guilty get punished, but Exodus says the innocent get punished on account of the guilty. Dude, wake up and get with the program... Who said anything about death as a consequence for sin, other than in the Genesis story, which we aren't even going over anymore! You are conflating two different arguments. Here, follow along:My argument concerning Genesis is that God told Adam he would die the DAY that he ate of the fruit. That didn't happen according to the story, as we both know.My other argument, clear as day, has to do with Ezekiel and Exodus contradicting. You bringing up spiritual or physical death, again, for the millionth time, is TOTALLY irrelevant to the argument. It doesn't matter at all. I am genuinely flabbergasted that even after several exchanges where I mention this, you keep bringing up as if you're actually making a point. LOL! LOL! Yes, those nails just passed through your shoulders while you lie helpless in your philosophical coffin. Goddamn, you are dense! Punishment is punishment. The degree or manner is IRRELEVANT, especially when INNOCENT people are being punished. I don't even know how to respond to this it's so asinine.You then go on for several paragraphs making arguments that no one else has ANY contention with. For the last time, you equivocating killing insects to the CREATOR of the universe ordering torture, rape, infanticide, and execution of an entire race is laughable and only bespeaks of the weakness of your position.That you sit here and defend these heinous passages is disgusting. You do realize that we are talking about God here, right? And what is God supposed to be? He's supposed to be love, right? And yet he punishes people for things they haven't done, as if it isn't bad enough that he creates in us a spirit prone to sin and then destroys us when we stray.Logically if God is the starting point for where and how all life emerges, that makes God culpable for the product. He is the manufacturer, he is supposed to be without sin. I am supposed to be with sin, because that's how he made you and me, as if killing insects were a sin.The stark contrast between the OT and NT's version of God is enough to prove that either God's morals do in fact change, we're dealing with separate God's altogether, or the whole damn thing is a crock just like all the other gods you deny.Take your pick.Now, if your response is further filled with redundancies, don't expect a reply. I think I've been more than patient in trying to get you to stop bringing up things that NO one is contending with, and instead dealing with the issue that I ACTUALLY presented to you.

---

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

And what about these? Are these poems too?

quote:

---

Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. - Isaiah 13:15-18

---

quote:

---

The glory of Israel will fly away like a bird, for your children will die at birth or perish in the womb or never even be conceived. Even if your children do survive to grow up, I will take them from you. It will be a terrible day when I turn away and leave you alone. I have watched Israel become as beautiful and pleasant as Tyre. But now Israel will bring out her children to be slaughtered." O LORD, what should I request for your people? I will ask for wombs that don't give birth and breasts that give no milk. The LORD says, "All their wickedness began at Gilgal; there I began to hate them. I will drive them from my land because of their evil actions. I will love them no more because all their leaders are rebels. The people of Israel are stricken. Their roots are dried up; they will bear no more fruit. And if they give birth, I will slaughter their beloved children." - Hosea 9:11-16

---

quote:

---

"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all — old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told." - Ezekiel 9:5-7

---

quote:

---

If even then you remain hostile toward me and refuse to obey, I will inflict you with seven more disasters for your sins. I will release wild animals that will kill your children and destroy your cattle, so your numbers will dwindle and your roads will be deserted. - Leviticus 26:21-22

---

---

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

The prophets wrote poetically in many instances, but claim to be speaking for God. The Psalms are nothing more than songs written by the people to express their feelings etc. The same reason we write songs today. They don't claim to be speaking for God.Leviticus is a Priestly writing.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Well you didn't respond to my Message 137, but you did mention my name. BTW, do you know Peg?

quote:

---

Further and that which buries your case even more, people did not die immediately when they did sin
in these instances, Ezekiel was not talking about physical death, or physical punishment, something that Moses or God WAS talking about in THE EXODUS text. there is no contradiction and there is certainly no ambiguity, it is to easy to mis for someone that is actually looking.

---

Good grief, do you really not understand reality? Death was not the penalty for all transgressions. If you disagree and bother to answer, then show in reality that physical death was the penalty for all sins. The people are writing creatively and dramatically.

quote:

---

PurpleDawn writes:

​

It is logically inconsistent to say that God can punish generations for the sins of one ancestor, but each person dies for their own sin. Even trying to make one of these about the afterlife is inconsistent since the afterlife was a later development.

No it is not and I have demonstrated this without question?

---

Actually, you haven't. You've just made assumptions and written fiction.No, one is not addressing the totality of and end result of sin. You're putting a later spin on the writings. They do not complement each other.Exodus deals with the corporate view. Ezekiel deals with the individual view. If the corporate view punishes for sins of the ancestors, then individuals are suffering for the sins of their ancestors. It isn't consistent.Yes you've made assumptions and have God speaking from the afterlife, but that is fiction.

quote:

---

I will address PDs statements here since they fit into the conversation. Even given the idea that the after life may have been a later concept, you are assuming he was not influnced by the direct operation of the Holy Spirit, which makes known information not otherwise available. Since we are clearly talking about God and the afterlife, since he resides in the afterlife and reveals this information to those writers, perhaps you could provide evidence he was not speaking through inspiration of God.

---

Which he? No the authors are not talking about the afterlife. You're writing fiction. Stick to the text.

quote:

---

Hmmmm look at Ezekiel 2 verse 2. "And the Spirit entered into me and spake unto me"........ I doubt these people were not aware of such concepts but then we would have to get rid of nearly the whole book wouldnt we PD.

---

Ezekiel is a prophet, they get visions. What's your point? Your assumption that God lives in the afterlife or that God is talking from the afterlife is not supported by the Bible. You're writing fiction.

quote:

---

Lets assume he is not talking about spiritual death, which from Gods concept and Ezekiels through inspiration his is. But lets assume for a moment he is not. Ezekiel is speaking about the end result of the iniquity the totality and summation to the point of death or the result of the sin RESULTING IN DEATH, due to continual sin without repentance, it would not change the point. God will hold the Father accountable finally for his sins, yet this would have nothing to do with what God can and will do presently as well. Ezekiels focus is the totality and finality of a persons life and what will happen as a result of that, whether it is death physically or as I believe death spiritually,, a JUDGEMENT.

---

No need to assume.

quote:

---

At bare minimum these verse are not in violation or conflict and I defy any person to show otherwise, excluding saying "I dont Like That"

---

Already did that and I didn't even say I don't like that. It has nothing to do with like, it has to do with the text.

quote:

---

Ah but they dont contradict. Ezekiel says the SOULLLLLLLL that sinneth it will die.

---

And I showed you that the word translated as soul means a living person. You haven't shown otherwise. The author of Revelation has nothing to do with the OT writers.You're creating your own story and not addressing the text.
Just as many have been trying to explain, laws change over time. Morals change over time. So what does any of your argument have to do with whether God is self-evident or not?

quote:

---

but after all of this it is your responsibility to show how an omnipotent omniscient God can be wrong about anything.

---

God is not omniscient.
Genesis 18:21 - I, the Lord, will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.
Job 1:7 - The Lord said to Satan, "Where have you come from?"Even though the book of Job is fiction, the writer did not understand God to be omniscient and neither did the author of Genesis.Why would an omniscient God lose his temper?
Judges 3:8 - "The anger of the Lord was hot against Israel...
2 Kings 13:3 - "The anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel"
2 Samuel 24:1 - "Again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel"God does make mistakes and learns from them.Genesis 2:18 - "It is not good that the man should be alone"
God didn't make an appropriate mate for Adam. God then had to rectify that mistake by creating Eve.An omniscient being would have known before he created Adam that it was not good for Adam to be alone. God had already made mates for the rest of the animals.Genesis 6:5 - The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.
So the flood was God's way of fixing his mistake. An omniscient being would have foreseen the potential problem. Unfortunately it didn't work since evil continues throughout the Bible.God is not omnipotent.
God is unable to stop mankind from misbehaving.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

HG writes:My first recomendation is that you go by the local library and pick up a good book on debating, you really need to learn how to responn to arguments, "I dont like that and its still a contradiction is not a proper response.Secondly I have not changed my tactics, I still maintain that Ezekiel is dealing with spiritual and final judgement. My purpose in responding to Purpledawn was to demonstrate that even if we remove that aspect, there is still no contradiction, did you actually read the arguments.But if that is not good enough lets do it from your own words. You stated earlier that we should ignore the fact of Moses or Ezekiel because it was God that made these statements, correct? so if we proceed from that premise it follows that the rest of the words in the scriptures are his words as well, correct? Since he and his inspired writers clearly speak of the second death and the death of the Soul, it follows that he is talking about that in Ezekiel. the children or Sons will not be held accountable from that respect.It therefore follows that God is dealing with a totally different aspect of punishment in Exodus. he is not saying he WILL NOT punish others for OTHERS SINS, only that he will not hold the children responsible for the individuals eternally and ultimately.now according to your own words and conclusions you continue to put your foot in your mouth. If these are Gods words as you suggest, then God would know what he is talking about OVERALL, remember the rest of the scriptures where he speaks about the soul, death and punishment? Or will you now xhange your position and say only the words in Ezekiel and Exodus are his and none of the rest. these are your own words that these are Gods words, remember. I think God should know what he is talking about overall, dont you? I never said they werent paying for others sins and neither did God. As a matter of fact he said they would and the individual would as well, he makes this statement in both instances. Your only problem is that you have still failed to respond now to the argument of how an omnipotent and omniscient God cannnot do this in the first place.Really HG, you should procure one of those debate manuals. Have funEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

PD writes amazingly writes:This kind of simplistic nonsense is why I will not respond to you further. Give me a breakEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

And still you don't answer the question: So what does any of your argument have to do with whether God is self-evident or not?The point of thread topic.

quote:

---

This kind of simplistic nonsense is why I will not respond to you further. Give me a break

---

It's not simplistic nonsense. At least what I present is actually in the Bible.

Thank you for the exchange hyro.
I hope things are good wiith ya. The author of the verse in question never commands anything. Please, demonstrate otherwise. Perhaps you know that God would condone baby smashin'. I have yet to reach that conclusion.What I will consider is that God will allow one to succumb to their own aggression. Again, whether or not sola scriptura, as defined by those within levtical christians and catholic traditions, has a valid basis in reality is a separate topic. No need to put words in my mouth friend.Again, what I will consider is that God will allow one to succumb to their own aggression. The first three are taken on a prophetic stance. The would be victims are all Yisraelis who have misrepresented the heart and will of God.That 'God's chosen people' are the ones being laid to waste seems to suggest God doesn't play favorites as some would have us believe.They show, once more, that God will allow one to succumb to their own aggression.The Nevi'im seem, to me, much more consistent than the priestly traditions. I have no excuses hyro. What I have is an educated understanding of how the prophets anticipated God's unwillingness to sit back and watch injustice.Perhaps I also feel that I have a certain understanding - as do you, but mine concerns the style that was often employed throughout prophetic utterance.The character of Yisraeli governance was often condemned and called into question by the Prophets of ancient Yisrael as a hypocritical charade intended to divert the people into sterile activities and the hollowness of religion and its dogmas, and so subvert the pursuit of true justice in the land.Notice how Isaiah asserts that 'no amount of silver or gold will buy {the Medes} off'? This infers an earlier time when bribery and extortion ruled Yisrael. According to the prophet, God was not happy about it and was willing to allow the Yisraelites to succumb to their own aggression and social misjustice.Even the last example you provide, found in the law books which are replete with documented edit and forgery, is a warning against Yisrael.Would you like to place these passages within their original context, together? Start a thread and I'll try to spend some time in it with you. What I feel is tragic is when a nation or a people go out of their way to misrepresent the heart and will of God, thinking they will somehow benefit. That God is unwilling to cater towards social misjustice. Perhaps you have. I'll let the audience, made up of critical thinkers and dogmatics alike, be the judge.Yet, later in this very post, you'll hand this victory to me and I will share with you the spoils of our work. I've suggested the roman bible as an infallible witness of sorts. Making a stride towards understanding who speaks what to who - and why, is critical. In any case, one may gain a better understanding by taking some sort of definitive stance concerning the heart and will of the character in question.That being, as far as my understanding goes, that God is unwilling to cater to social misjustice, and will not let forgeries go undocumented ...Regardless of the persistent attempts carried out through the malignant aggression on behalf of dogmatics who certainly wish they would have. Ok - you got me.It is obvious that because I will not succumb to your sola scriptura that I'm some sort of terrorist. I get that from dogmatics constantly.It doesn't change the fact that the roman bible has been edited multiple times to serve a variety of agendas or that the book contains that witness.And that many people nullify those portions of the text, will not change the fact either. It is sad that people decide to take an all or nothing stance.I understand that it's a fear based mentality massaged and promoted by the church and those who believe them, over the more critical evidence. Not to imply that I agree with you on the whole, but ... ... now we're gettin' to some level playing field - lol Duly noted. I appreciate it, I guess. If you will, divide and enjoy these spoils with me.Honestly, this isn't about winning to me, as much as it is about allowing a spirit of truth to flourish through a more critical analysis of these various texts. That is not to imply, by any means, that I indeed know the Truth^TM, but rather that, much like you if I may suppose, I'm not quick to believe the corporation.Again, I have more faith that, as I submit my conscience and intellect to God, I will be assisted by a spirit of truth more honest than the former. It certainly is my friend. Yet, my conscience does not quickly allow me to assign the unspeakable towards the heart of God. Mankind on the other hand ... As you seem to understand - and I would tend to partially agree, these texts are often politically motivated. The 'very Word of God' served Rome well.However, I have no desire to partake in nationalism and have identified that these ancient Jewish texts were formed into a book paid for by Constantine. Perhaps you're justified in veiwing my stance as a reduction of sorts, but it may be - just as quickly, construed as a minimalism of political manipulation.Again, I get that shit all the time for not bowing to the 'sacred' doctrines of Rome and her illegitimate step children. Usually, it's from christian sects though. While I may recognize, what I perceive as, dogmatic tendencies in your debate, I don't identify you as a christian, and so, I tend to become a bit confused.I'm sure my lack of patience with dogmatics and abundance of sarcasm doesn't always serve me - or others, well, but that's something I need to work on. Again, I have taken a definitive stance on the character, the heart and the will of God. That being, God will not cater to those who promote social misjustice.So then, when I encounter a passage - after rendering my conscience and intellect to God, that conflicts with the outcome of my evolved conscience and intellect, in regards to social misjustice, I must begin asking questions. I am, by no means, infallible, but I do trust God more than mankind or myself. An interesting perspective, albeit a bit ambiguous by nature. Personally, I'm thankful to have developed a relationship with God long before I ever found out about that ol' book or made any attempt towards understanding what is actually taking place within it's pages. In the end, reality is my canon hyro - to me, the bible is a chapter in that book. And yes, I know that's considered a cop out by imperialists, nationalists, catholics and christians - and many others, alike.There is a sense within me that suggests sola scriptura is as much of a cop out on their parts as well, perhaps motivated by a fear of reality and justice. Again, that only holds if I believe you - that the bible is, somehow, a greater authority concerning the Truth^TM of our existence than reality itself.Thankfully, I don't subscribe to that doctrine. As I said, God was in my heart long before the pages within the bible made their way into my mind. Yep - perdy shitty.It seems to me, like a cryin' shame, that people trust the political motivations of mankind over the witness of God - that being, the prophets and reality. I have already addressed this, and ... ... this. So, I'll leave them for now. If not for my faith in God's ability to heal one's mind and guide them into a more full understanding of reality, I would have agreed.Again, I'm thankful to not have been indoctrinanted at a young age. As far as I can reason ...Your position, as one who has, perhaps, been proselytized - before seeking the character, the heart and the will of God, into accepting the idea of sola scriptura, as presented in the poli-religious arena, seems unworthy of envy as well. However, I don't believe all people will rot in such putrid beliefs, but rather, I have abundant faith many will pursue the eradication of social misjustice caused by fear based poli-religious doctrines such as 'sola scriptura'.My hope and prayer, then, is that many will not throw out the baby with the bath water, as it were, after becoming completely and totally frustrated by the deceit, ignorance, naivety and nullification of evidence constantly and consistently promoted and promulagated by those weak minded fear mongers.Again, thanks for the exchange hyro, and - peace to you bud.One Love

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker.
If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want and desire mercy, not sacrifice'
They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself?
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

quote:

---

The post was directed at someone else who believes the Bible to tell it as it is.
Context.

​

Think about it.

---

ROFL !No. That doesn't make it any less silly.

HG writes:Again I must say I have never seen anyone avoid arguments as well as you do. Listen carefully, an Omniscient, Omnipotent God has a right to take action on his creation as he sees fit even in the case of other creatures and the disobedience of others, they are BOTH Gods Creatures, we are the created, not the creator. Now if you will QUIT PLAYING THE simplistic moron role and point out in a logical form why this is not valid and stop looking at it from simply another human beings stadpoint, it would be very helpful.It will not help you to try and show contradiction in these passages because I have already demonstrated that they do not contradict. The expression in Ezekiel is the same one in Genesis, '"IN THE DAY YOU EAT THEREOF YOU WILL SURELY DIE". Under consideration is SOMETHING MORE than physical death, (PurpleDawn), notwithstanding. They began to die physically and separated themselves from God that same day. They did not die immediatley in Genesis or in Ezekiel, therefore the punishment mention in Ezekiel is of a different nature than that mentioned in Exodus.When you make this clear distinction it should be obvious that God is speaking of the individual in Ezekiel and dealing spefically with the totality of an indivduals life in contrast to the punishment he will certainly inflict for even others sins. In other words he is saying, I will not hold the Son responsible from an eternal perspective, this will be on the Father, but (Exodus) I will punish to the Son, even presently the sins of the father, because of the nature of sin to Gods character. Does he not have a right to do both?Genesis is saying exacally the same thing. If this is not good enough for you I used your own words to support this point. , "We should ignore Moses and Ezekiel and pay attention to the fact that God is making these statements". ARE THESE YOUR WORDS OR NOT? Even if for the sake of argument, you were making this statement, then we must take what the entire scriptures (God)has to say about, death, punishment and justice correct. God is dealing with the entire picture of a persons life, (In ezekiel)the punishment for it and its ETERNAL consequences. The degree or manner is relevant, even where innocent people are involved when dealing with Gods judgement. Perhaps you could respond to these logical points besides crying
FOUL. Why because you are a human being and not a Ant. I bet Andy the Ant doesnt feels the same way you do, but thats ok, because he doesnt know that HGs morality is RELATIVE when it comes to Andy and not himself, Andy doesnt know that HG has a right to kill, eat and consume large amounts of other animals because HG is hungry. Andy doesnt know that HG percieves himself as a much greater creature morally and physically. Could someone please g brief Andy, hey we try to do it with Dolphins and Gorrillas dont we, Give me a breakLaughable???? Do you mean to imply indirectly that morality is not the SAME across the board. But this is what you are requiring of God that he conform to your morality, to which you are an illogical, incocsitent boob. If this is your implication, then cant it bepossible that Gods ways of doing things can be different than
yours, since you believe your actions are justified, but wont provide a standard that says you are okIf nothing else Gods existence is self-evident, in the morals of man alone or even in his inconsistency to accomplish such.I cannot believe anyone is this VOID of understanding and how logic and consistency works. Do you honestly believe any thinking person to accept the idea that because God is greater than we are that this
excuses you for your actions, the same ones for which you accuse God. Wow, son you have a long way to come in the polemic arena. If you are participating in the same actions you accuse God of you are
whatever you accuse him. Idont think you are so stupid that you cannot see this simple point, i believe you are avoiding it at all cost, to not involve yourself in the worst form of contradiction. Dont both you and God have full knowledge of what you are doing?Your comparison and exclamation to what God does and what you do only works in the EMOTIONAL realm not in the world of logical consistency. Try dealing with the latter. So which is it my simpistic friend, are both of you guilty of genocide or neither? Have fun.Besides this you never gave me a specfic word to DESCRIBE your actions in the taking off life on a mass scale of insects or animals. From an ETHICAL standpoint what WORD would you use to describe these actions? Would it be Monster, criminal, justified unjustified? Perhaps you could find a word that you also describe Gods action.At any rate please provide me with a term that describes your actions in this regard, or shut your cake hole condemning the God of the Bible. BTW, Dont forget to pick that debate book when you are out and about. Whooooooa.EAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.