Is God Self-Evident

HG writes: No they were punished because God holds disobedience and sin in such a high regard. Besides all of this you ignoring that he had previously warned them against such PERSISTENT actions. Most of the punishment by God was only usually as a result of years and years and years of disobedience and after repeated warnings and patience on Gods part. Bad choices does not describe in this instance usually what the circunstances were. It does matter and makes perfect sense. So then what you are saying is that if I can demonstrate you are immoral in your actions, you really have no way to condemn God correct?EAM Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

HG writes:This is not rocket science HG, for if the two authors are talking about two different concepts then it would follow that they are not in contradiction. Ignoring on your part that there is a physical death or punisment and a spiritual or eternal one demonstrates that you refuse to deal with the issue.Again to demonstrate and to which you will probably ignore the fact is this, no matter how the scriptures represents death or punishment for sin, it does not always involve immediate death or punishment, not always. So it is the readers responsiblity to look at the context and totality to see what is being implied.Already you have demonstrated that Adam did not die immediately once sinning, so, common sense would tell us that God did not have in mind here death in an instant but was refering to something else. So was GOD or the writer lying, no the writer or God was reffering to something else, that is not death in an instant The writers of these two passages had something different in mind, the distinction clearly removes it from any contradiction. I know you are to smart of a person not to see the points I am making Here. You being silly and I have already answered this numerous times. Besides this when a criminal is sentenced to death and the actual punishment takes place 15 years later, was the judge lying or contradictoryEAM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------HG writes:Ok before this thing gets to far out of hand and you seem to be caught up on being very specific, please answer me this. Where in the Exodus passage does it mention the SOUL. So clearly Ezekiel is talking about something different than Moses or God in Exodus. The Soul that sins will die. So it does talk about spiritual death. Jesus said, "What shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world and losess his own SOUL", Jesus clearly has something under consideration than physical body or death, correct? LOL Stop man you killing me man. Ofcourse I dont mean literally, or am I in contradiction, do mean something else besides killing literally? The difference is degree of sin and the punisment involved. Ezekiel is saying he will not hold you responsible for the ULTIMATE unrepented sin of the individual, exodus is saying he will punish presently the sins of the fathers due to the nature of sin and Gods character, there is a clear distinction in scriptrure.The iorny of this situation is that he is actually saying he WILL PUNISH SIN IN both instances, in Ezekiel and Exodus. Think about it, He will not hold children responsible for the ultimate and eternal punishment of an individuals sin (Ezekiel), but he will still (Exodus), punish sin to a DEGREE for the sins of the fathers or parents presently. Its not a contradiction it simply demonstrating sin comes in degrees in Gods omniscience. One type deserves ultimate or eternal punishment the other involves the immediate response in his estimation.Again in both passages Sin will be punished, the how, when, where and why are the main issues of those textsEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

HG writes Not a chance Ill give up or stop talking to you in this regard. Its neither problematic or disconcerting,this is one of the more simpler issues WE have to deal with in the Christian ethics, no problems here mate. You are rather simplistic compared to Modulous or PaulK, Id put you on a par with Devils Advocate.Besides this I thought we were on track when discussing morals and principles until you started crying Contradiction, Contradiction, I thought it was necessary to take you down that road to show there was no such contradiction. thus far I can see nothing that even implies contradiction and youve done nothing to touch any of the arguments advanced to you. Ill take it slow for you so you can understand what is involved here HG. We actually have two separate issues here. One is wehther these two verses contradict eachother and whether or not a God has the right to punish someone else for someone elses sins. The only way to determine the previous is to delve into what the rest of the scriptures have to say with regards to mans make up, Gods character, sin the soul and such like. In other words this is strickly a Biblical issue whether they contradict. For, now, pay attention HG, for, if you employ only human understanding to the to verses they will appear to contradict eachother. if however you look at it from a Biblical perspective and understanding they appear to make perfect senseThe second issue is pretty much a philosohical issue with Biblical overtones, depending on which God you are talking about. Now I assume we are talking about the God of the Bible that you alledge smashes babies on rocks, correct? So which issue do you wish to discuss, the issue of whether these two verse contradict eachother or whether God or any god has a right to inflict punishment on others for others sins. Your confusion is coming in due to the fact that you are running two different issues smack dap together crying foul about a biblical issue without looking at the SAME souces explanations and information is nonsensicalSince you refuse to deal with the arguments and scriptures to support those issues presented to you lets do it in question form so you cant avoid the issues.Is it possible that the two writers are addressing two different issues? Yes or NoIf they are, then it it is possible that they dont contradict eachother, to which you have admitted the possibilty, Yes or No?If Ezekiel is not addressing the issue of punishment of others for others sins EXCLUSIVELY,then it follows that God can do this because he never said anywhere else that he would not, even in Ezekiel, correct, Yes or No?Since Moses or God in Exodus is not dealing with what Ezekiel is speaking about, it follows that atleast from this context that God can and does have a right to punish others for others sins, since he never anywhere else said he would not in a physical or earthly context, correct? Yes or No?Since the verses clearly do not contradict eachother (in a Biblical perspective)why is God prevented from punishing others for others sins?If there are two different types of punishment (Rev and the second death, etc)one eternal and final and one earthly and temporal, then why would God not be able to administer punishment as he sees fit in
each instance?If you are unable to show contradiction in these two verses, which you clearly have not, then it would follow logically that you cannot show error on the Bibles part about the Justice or Punishment of God, correct, Yes or NO?Since as you have admitted the verse may not contradict and cannot from a biblical perspective demonstrate this point, it would follow that your contentions in this connection are null and void, correct, or ATLEAST not applicable, Yes or No?If I can show a clear distinction between the two things discussed, two different types of punishment involved, two different sets of circumstances in the passages, it would follow that you are not warrented in being as specfic as you are trying to be in this circustancem, correct, Yes or No?If you know anything about debate I think you can see the extreme logical blunder in asserting that the verses may not contradict eachother then saying, "what about what it says in Exodus, how do you reconcile that". If they dont contradict eachother, then why do I need to reconcile it with anything and what does it matter what Exodus says? Now you are only left with the philosophical issue of whether a God has the right to punish others for others sins. If they dont contradict eachother, how do I reconcile it with WHAT?HG writes: Your confusion is that you are trying to make the writes speak about the same thing, they are not. you would need to show that there ARE NOT two distinct types of punishment spoken of in the Bible and specifically in these two verses. In this connection your task is impossible and you argument falls to the Ground. I cant MAKE UP what someone else wrote down A LONG TIME AGO. Your avoidance of the
SPECIFICS about what the scriptures has to say overall in this connection is nothing short of misrepresentationAgain the iorny that you are missing is that he is saying he will do BOTH, he will punish ( in Ezekiel) the individual for his sins eternally and that he will punish the children (in Exodus) for the sins of the fathers. But the children of the fathers are not mentioned Ezekiel because that is not what he is talking about and
indicates in exodus that he will do that. ABSOLUTELY no contradiction and if there is no contradiction I dont need to compare it to anything, correct?Your tactic is unwarrented and unreasonable simply because you are taking clear advantage of the fact that Ezekiel is being very specific about a specific issue of punishment, you run with that and cry contradiction. you know full well he is not addressing the entire issue of punishmentDont try and put words in Ezekiels mouth, dont make him say something he is not. again, if I can show even the slightest distinction in what the writers are discussing, then you are not justified in drawing an absolute conclusion on what constitues punishment in a given situation Now since we have cleared that up with both logic and scripture, perhaps you would like to discuss why an Ominpotent and Omniscient God does not have a right to do this in the first place. Now be very clear on what we are doing here, are we going to bandy scriptures and try and show contradiction or are we going to dis cuss a philosophical issue or are we going to run them together to discuss the God of the Bible.However, you need to be specific, for, while I am clear on what you are doing and your confusion, I think you are confusing some of the readers. Dont jump around from one thing to another, or if you do dont complain when someone tries to respond to your accusations and alledged contradictions, OK?EAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

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.

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.

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.

PD writes: Trust me I am very tempted to get into this very simple conversation, however it is hard to take serious, anyone who believes that God did not actually know where Satans was before the Staff meeting, or know what the status and condition of Sodom was before he gave a visit, by himself or the angels with himForgive me I dont mean to sound superior, I certainly AM NOT, but some times people need to study a bit further before actually discussing and debating Gods Word. "For when for the time that you should be teachers, you have need that one need that one teach you again, that which is the first principles of the oracles of God." HebrewsGood luck in your future studies.EMAEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

Bailey writes:A question from a 'Weak minded fear monger' Ignoring humanistic and evolutionary concepts for a moment, did in your view the flood which destroyed countless thousands of people actually happen, did it happen or is just another poem or prohetic utterance?Forgive my weak mindedness, I just need the help of those that understand the Word of God perfectly.EMAEdited by EMA, : No reason given.