|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Is God Self-Evident | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
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. 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.
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. 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.
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. He didn't know that, Adam had to be told BEFORE as a warning not to do it.
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 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...
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 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!
Do you feel the nails going into the coffin HG? LOL! Yes, those nails just passed through your shoulders while you lie helpless in your philosophical coffin. 
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 punishment 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.
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 show logical inconsistencey 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
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. If so, they speak for God, claiming to quote God. The dilemma then becomes whether or not the minor or major prophets are liars or whether God really does want to slaughter infidels.
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. So are you saying that it is only a literary work and not the work of God?
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. Yes, I understand that, but are you not seeing the dilemma? You either reduce Isaiah and other venerated prophets as false prophets (claiming to speak revelations from God), which is biblically condemned even by those very prophets (which would then make them hypocrites as well as liars) or they really are vessels for God, in which case he in fact did order such atrocities. Think about it. Any which avenue you choose invariably leads to some theological catastrophe.
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. I agree it most likely would be a misrepresentation of God, but how else would know? If the bible is the revelation of God's mind and lays out the conduct for mankind, yet is also subject to man's sinful intervention, then how would you really know the mind of God versus instructions coming from men claiming to represent God?
quote: That God is unwilling to cater towards social misjustice. Is it not an injustice to slaughter innocent infants who could not possibly have affronted God with their sin, since they have not yet the capacity to do so?
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. And what is your personal understanding of it? Are the prophets liars or does God command atrocity?
That being, as far as my understanding goes, that God is unwilling to cater to social misjustice, and will not let forgeries go undocumented. This is a contradiction, as previously, and later down the line in this post we'll see that you do not ascribe to the belief of infallibility. You can't have it both ways since one nullifies and contradicts the other.
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. Actually, I rather agree more with how you view it to some degree than the dogmatists, my criticisms aside. I'm playing the role of devil's advocate right now.
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. The RCC is almost a complete bastardization of what Jesus worked so hard for and gave his life for. I personally have a strong affection for Jesus, provided the stories attributed to him are true. He was right about so many things in my estimation and the world would be a better place if we would take it to consideration.
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 TruthTM, but rather that, much like you if I may suppose, I'm not quick to believe the corporation. Hear, hear!!! Well said. It appears that I have misjudged you, and I apologize for so hastily prejudging you. I just got through debating a very hard-headed indivual who made every excuse imaginable. It was disturbing. I should not have lumped you in with all the leaven.
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. This is how I tend to view theology as 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. My personal opinion is that for the most part it is an invaluable historical document. A great deal of it is incredibly accurate. And I think it attempts to search the heart of God. There is much beauty and benevolence in that. That said, I don't think it is free from human infiltration which corrupts its character.
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. Actually I rather like it. Carry on, and carry on strong!
Again, thanks for the exchange hyro, and - peace to you bud. And you the same  "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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
