|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is God good? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Interpretation, bringing out deeper meanings, is not adding to or subtracting from the word of God.
But I look forward to Jaywill's answer as he's been doing a very good job, thankless as all such attempts here are.He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
I have time this morning for about one more post.
When you say 'pure and righteous' I start to think that you are redefining 'love' to fit the actions of your god. Firstly, the quip "your god" is perculiar to me like "your gravity" or "your sun." If there is a God then God is simply yours as well as mine like the law of gravity is simply everyone's reality to deal with. But on to the real matter. I do not say that in the 66 books of the Bible there are absolutely no puzzles or difficult instances to analyse. There are some difficult portions. But by in large we have a pretty extensive history of this God's interacting with humans. From Genesis to Revelation, while some thornier appear, quite a great deal more reveals to me the purity, goodness, light, equity, justness, and righteousness of God. I got convinced. Especially, examining the life of the central One of the Book - Jesus Christ I got completely convinced that God is utimate Goodness. And as I grow spiritually, many previously bewildering actions of God make more sense. I think I am beginning to think like Jesus the more I live the Christian life. I do not hunt through the Bible for things to hurt my faith.Some difficult passages I place on the backburner for latter analysis. I also benefit from the experience of others more mature in this life. I do not expect that the Bible will only contain things which I like.I find the Bible unique in that it seems to contain some stepping on our toes SOMEWHERE. Maybe no one has ever lived which liked absolutely everything he read in the Bible with no exception. Whoever you are, I bet I can find something in the Bible which steps on your toes about something. Jesus Christ is the centrality. And His goodness I believe is the highest that has ever walked this earth. I don't know what your interests are. But I suspect that in reading about them you did not allow easy discouragement to turn you away. If you really love a matter you will not easily discard it at the first obstacle. I do not say NO actions of God in the Bible are difficult for me. I say that the vast majority of righteous acts encouragement that what I need is further spiritual growth to understand them all.
This is conditional love: your god is saying 'I will love you if you do exactly what I want. Otherwise I will go out of my way to punish you'. This accusation suggests that God should recuse Himself from being the ultimate Judge of all existence. In other words, because God is emotionally involved He is not qualified to also be the final decider of the consequences of moral failure. I did not see a command to LOVE God actually. I saw a command to BELIEVE in Christ. Many of us didn't love much when we came to salvation. But we believed a believable Jesus. We decided "This Man is believable." There is no harm in coming to Christ and confessing our doubts too. Did you read about the father who cried out "Lord I believe, help my unbelief"? We may come confessing that we have no love. For His Gospel is not to demand of love but the command to BELIEVE in Christ. Now ONCE I experienced the PEACE and JOY of having my sins rolled away a great love began to well up in my heart. Love certainly followed the peace of being reconciled to God. Love may even preceed. It is no harm that one read through the New Testament and find his heart simply begins to love this figure Jesus. But the Gospel, strictly speaking, is to BELIEVE. So we can come with a cold heart believing that Christ is indeed the Son of God. Now in the worldly realm it would be foolish to accuse the judge of not loving me if I am penalized for a crime. "Your honor you are handing me a sentence of punishment for my crime. You don't love me. So you are bad and wrong." How would that sound? God does not give up His righteousness for anything. He can love to the uttermost yet still refuse to give up His eternal rightness. Your accusation insists that He discard justice and truth. I see God as qualified to decide on the ultimate matters of good and evil and also maintain His great love. I see the cross of Jesus as the place where God's righteousness works and God's great love also works. I see God not denying one attribute in order to maintain the other. I see God holding to BOTH His love and His righteousness. In His love He has prepared me to be with Him for eternity. I simply cannot fathom WHY God loves me to this extent. In His righteousness I also see that He has not simply overlooked my sins. He has JUDGED them in a substitute, in His Son. I do not count that God has sentimentally just said "I know you didn't mean it. Let's just forget about those sins." No, I see that He has forgiven them by demonstrating His justice upon them too. I see that I was judged in Christ on His cross. I see that justice was imputed on my behalf in Another who was absolutely without guilt. He carried the penalty which was too heavy for me. My obligation is to only believe in the Son of God. If I were to ask God about my sins now He would say that they have been paid in full. He has not sloppily overlooked them. He has judged them. Justice has been imputed on my behalf on Calvary. My debt as to eternity is paid in full. Now this is good news. This is good news. God looks upon the believer as if he had never sinned at all. His history is Jesus Christ. So love works at the same time as righteousness also works.
it would be no love to eternally mix into their number myriads who have refused to be saved. So your god's motivation is not to be 'pure and righteous' but a form of spiritual apartied. While the word "apartied" has an emotional negative connotation to it, it is not effective here.
" ... at the consummation of the age: the angels will go forth and separate the evil from the midst of the righteous." (Matt. 13:49) Sorry. The evil will not ALWAYS be co-associated together with the righteous. God will make a seperation someday.
"The Son of Man will send His angels, and they will collect out of His kingdom all the stumbling blocks and those who practice lawlessness." (Matt. 13:41) God will not always allow in His kingdom the stumbling blocks who stumble others who desire to persue righteousness. He will collect them OUT of His kingdom. He will put them into their own place. You do not allow any hoodlum off the street to come into your house forever and take up residence. If you eventually expelled a criminal from living in your establishment it would be foolish to accuse you of apartied in the same racist sense as you imply. Having said that, I would hasten to add that the Gospel message does not demand that you not be a universalist. It does not command you to believe that maybe everyone can be saved. It commands you to believe in the Son of God. You may come saying "God I think you will eventually save everyone. But believe that Jesus the Son of God." The command is about believing in Jesus the Son of God. It is not even a requirement that one understand that much. You simply believe Jesus is Lord, the risen Son of God -
"That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." (Rom. 10:9) But that God will separate those in His kingdom and those who reject Him, would only be a lack of love if there was no wonderfully gracious plan of salvation. Your attempts to portray God as having no love won't move me.Rather they may suggest a kind of drunken stupor of an permissivist philosophy that defines love as allowing any and all things to be done with no consequences for wrong doing. This is a hyper liberalism, the Barnyization of God. What is revealed in Scripture is not a Barny the Dinosour like God. No doubt His love is to the uttermost, very strong and extending forever. But He is also righteous and will not give that up for anyone or anything. He will forgive in a manner which maintains His righteous standard and vindicates His truth. You foolishly imagine a Barny like God who will discard TRUTH for a hyper liberal sentimental permissivism. It is better to accept the offer that in Christ's redemptive death justice upon wrong doing was imputed on your behalf. And this was done because He loves you. He loves you but will not discard truth and justice because of that love. He will maintain both simulatneously. What He commands of you is to only believe in the Son of God, Jesus.
So rather than send all these people to 'Number 2, Heaven' where the canapes are slightly less fresh, your god (in his mercy and love) renders them into immortal bodies to be tortured for all eternity. I mentioned nothing about Heaven. I mentioned former sinners being conformed to the image of Christ to be His many brothers. I don't like the thought of eternal punishment. But it makes sense only if we are talking about ultimates. If God is ultimate then there must be an ultimate offense. Modern relvativism does not believe that the cosmic buck stops anywhere. But there must be an ultimate Governor. If so then an ultimate offense with ultimate punishement makes sense, though the thought is dreadful. What I do is spend at least an equal time to contemplate what God has done to SAVE us from that fate. I am moved by the incarnation of God as man, the life, death and resurrection of this One on our behalf that we might be saved from sin against PERFECTION. I believe that behind the universe is the PERFECT. It makes no sense to me that the Originator, the Creator of all being has creations which exceed Himself in goodness. The creature correcting the Creator makes no sense to me. How could they have what God did not have in Himself to bestow? How could the effect be greater than the Cause? All your complaints so far sound to me like a need for the effect to correct the Cause - for us to fix God. I think it is better to believe the believable Savior Jesus. And believing into Him as a realm being justified according to God's encredibly gracious offer. In a sense, what more can God do? He is willing to make my history all that Jesus Christ is - total identification with Christ. This is something I could never achieve in my sinful self. So I believe into Him and accept that God now views me in Christ, sharing His glorious destiny. What does your philosophy offer me that is better than Christ? [qw]Love? Or spite for rejecting him? Why not just let the visciously evil people who reject your god be permenently dead? But no. You god must have his misery. [/qs] Annhilationist would believe so. Universalists might believe something similar. I believe how the Bible relates these matters to me. I may like some things. I may not like other things. But I take it as the Bible teaches. I see in your posts a bitter attempt to lash out in accusation against God. But your concern for the lost cannot match the concern of the Savior. And you will not be able to paint Jesus as the enemy to me. You will not be able to portray your goodness as exceeding that of God's.
That is not righteous. That is your god's over reaction and lust for solving every problem with threats and violence. And the bible shows this quite well, no matter how you twist your god's inspired words. I assume that you have given your strongest example of ground for accusation against God. I assume that your other examples are probably not as strong. I could be wrong. But the example you gave doesn't prove to me a fickle unstable husband suddenly turning love into hatred. I would not say that Mark 16:16 reveals no hatred. But it is a hatred for the foreign element which the sinner will not part from. He insists to carry it with him. God sends warning and a gracious offer how the sinner may be separated from the cursed foreign element of sin. He should believe into Christ. So the sinner should not refuse but accept the invitation to believe in the Son of God. He should come just as he is, even with a cold heart or problems with doubt. He should nevertheless come and believe into Christ and show the world by allowing himself to be baptized in the name of Jesus. That PERFECTION lies behind the universe is only a horror if God left us no way for the sinner to be reconciled. We can be justified as if we had never sinned at all, by believing into the resurrected and availavble Savior Jesus. This way shows both righteousness and love. Now that is all the time I have this morning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3820 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
For the purpose of this topic the Christian god exists and the bible is 100% accurate. some examples Exodus The Israelites get in to Egypt because of a famine they get enslaved .... Moses comes along and god sends 10 punishments because the PHARAOH does not let the Israelites go free. 1. Water to blood2. frogs 3. Lice 4. Flies 5. Livestock desiesed 6. Boils 7. Thunder hail 8. Locusts 9. Darkness 10. Death of first-borns Now exempt from harm from these plagues where obviously the Israelites, but the Pharaoh was also exempt from harm the actual guy who said no had nothing happen to him, His inocent child got killed and the innocent children of the land of Egypt the people of Egypt suffered but the man who said no and angered god got of scot free. The Israelites went out of Egypt then god split the waters so they could pass had a pillar of fire standing so the Egyptians could not follow then removed the pillar when the Israelites where safe on the other side knowing that Pharaohs armies would follow then he drowned them. The Israelites after 40 years came to the promise land. Filled with other civilisations gods orders where, to utterly destroy them make no covenant with them and show them no mercy, when it came to the amalecs he ordered to kill everything man women babe sucking unborn, donkeys camels .... On his way to the amalecs Saul met the Kenites urging them to flee what did god pleased with Sauls mercy? No he wasent. When Saul decided not to kill the animals but use them to feed his people was god pleased wit his charity? NOgod rejected him as king to please his god he braught the king AGAG and hacked him to pieces before the lord. Are this the action of a Good being? Example 2: David who married Batshiba, against the wishes of god how did god punish David? God said since you have sinned me THE CHILD WILL DIE. an innocent child again. And was this child to die suddenly and painlessly no for 7 days he suffered. How can a good being punish an innocent child? What about the flood?What did the people do to warent such genocide such slaughter what did the children do? what did the sucklings do? what did the babes in their mothers wombs do? Is the flood an action of a good and just good? Right.That is the Socratic question the Bible reader must ask himself as he tries to define what such an Almighty entity could conceivable be such as to make rational sense of these things. If this entity were a mortal, like us, it would mean this was a very mean man, indeed.But we KNOW the story says this entity is not a man, but some spiritual non-material entity. Perhaps it is a concept??? Maybe we need think of the Almighty as an Ideal or concept of some sort. ///On the other hand, we must also read comprehensively, because Pharaoh and ll his army drown. He did not get off Scott free. And the "Flood" seems too analogous to the explosion of Modern man Out-of-Africa, 40 thousand years ago when, indeed, all other types of humanoids went extinct. The "flood" probably refers to the spreading of Modern Homo sapiens to the tops of the mountains and around all the world, as if water gushing across the whole land. Saul is described pretty accurately as a kind of man God made who is different from the sexually promiscuous gentiles described in the Bible.He sounds very much to be a patriarch, like the muslims of today. And in both cases, slaughtering the matriarchies of the Gentiles seems to be inherent in their make up. So does killing one another ruthlessly, too. As far as David's son dying, that does seem to be the statistical case for our fatherless illegitimate boys in particular today.
What this suggests to me is that God is Reality, that entity that insists to us, "I am."I exist and you must face me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
You are contradicting the bible. No I didn't. I refered to more of what is written there.
Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. Can you quote the sentences which I alledgedly ADDED ?Can you indicatee what I suggested should not be considered written in it ? If you cannot then you should admit a false accusation of my adding or subtracting from the Bible's text.
Psalm 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Where did I say a word of the Lord was not pure? I only quoted that Jesus said in essence "Thus in such was spoken to the ancients, but I say unto you thus and such." A fuller picture of truth does not count the former words impure. The mother tells her child at age two "Eat the food. Pick it up with your fingers." Latter as the child advances to age five she may say "Use your FORK." The latter fuller word does not render the former word impure.The level of the disclosure of God's purpose and nature renders somewhat different speakings as the word of God progresses.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. These are great passages. None of them establish your false accusation of me adding or diminishing the Bible. You are showing us that you can hunt through the Scriptures for passages. See, you too could find Jesus Christ there is you really had an open heart to the Lord and Savior Jesus.
Psalm 33:11 The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations. Where did I say the counsel of the Lord does not stand forever ?Would you quote me? I think your complaint is over interpretive matters. If you think I am interpreting wrongly, then tell me why you think that. Along with the death penalty in Leviticus was the trespass offerings, peace offerings, sin offerings. These were all types and symbols of the Son of God to come as the all-inclusive final offering for the sin of the world. I would suggest that you go about your objection by pointing out WHERE the homosexual or blasphemer was specifically forbidden to avail himself of one of the other offerings should he repent of his ways - ie. the sin offering, the trespass offering, the peace offering, even the consecration offering. I am out here on a limb now. Maybe I need correction. You do the work. WHERE does the Old Testament say the "gay" man could not repent and perhaps offer a sin offering to the priest for his atonemen ? Work on it a little. Maybe I'll stand corrected. But empty accusation of dimishing the Scripture or adding to the Scripture I will just ignore, unless you provide clear quotations of that.
Psalm 100:5 For the LORD is good, his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations Amen. Did I write otherwise ?
Psalm 117:2 For his merciful kindness is great toward us: and the truth of the LORD endureth for ever. Praise ye the LORD. What if you reject His merciful kindness ? What if instead of praising the Lord you choose to arm yourself with accusations and blasphemies against the Lord ? A corresponding passage spoken by Jesus was this -
"So that you may become sons of your Father who is in the heavens, because He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good and sends rain on the just and the unjust." (Matt. 5:45) Yes God is merciful and kind to send His rain and let His sun shine upon all men - evil and good, just and unjust. That God is merciful to do so does not mean He does not discern or discriminate morally between people. You are badly twisting things. According to your twistings the fact that is kind to send rain and to cause sunshine means all are good and none are evil - or all are just and none are unjust. Are you drunk with excessive Humanism? Many many acts of God reveal His kindness and mercifulness to created man. These do not mean that He will forever tolerate the sins of man. By the time you get to your Psalm 117 you should have already noticed that in Genesis with the story of Noah.
"And Jehovah said, My Spirit will not strive with man forever ..." (Genesis 6:3) The Spirit of God will convict sinners to repent and believe in His salvation. As He does He continues His kindness and mercy. But He will not strive with the unrepentant human conscience FOREVER. If you didn't notice, this too is part of the pure word of God which lasts forever.
Psalm 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Thanks. That explains why the death of Christ has forever settled the judgment of God upon my sins. And it also explains why the last judgment at the great white throne is forever -
"And I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose face earth and heaven fled away, and no pleace was found for them. And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and scrolls were opened, and another scroll was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were JUDGED by the things which were written in the scrolls, according to their works. (Rev. 20:12) This is the final judgment at the end of the ages before the eternal age, when His judgment will last forever. And here:
"And if anyone was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire." (v.15) So in facing this final judggmental decision we should spread the word that men may have their names written in the book of life of the Lamb.
Isaiah 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever. Amen. Great passage also. Have some more ?
Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. Amen. His word will outlast the reliability of the physical universe. This implies that the universe has its purpose in the purpose of God. It is not an accident.
"You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, for You have created all things, and because of Your will they were, and were created." (Rev. 4:11) All creation then exists because of the will of God, the plan of God, the purpose of God. It is no wonder that His WORD concerning His will is more stable than the universe itself. It will outlast heaven and earth. In the same book the Word of God is absolutely PERSONIFIED to mean Jesus Christ -
" ... and His name is called the Word of God." (Rev. 19:13) Christ is the meaning of the universe. It exists by and for Christ. So we should believe into Christ and quite making clever twisted excuses from the handy dandy "Do-it-yourself" skeptical pocket Christian refuter.
Luke 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. The same book has Jesus saying - "This cup is the new covenant established in My blood, which is poured out for you." (Luke 22:20) In Christ's redemption God established a new covenant without a title of the law failing. Did you give at least equal time to examining that teaching in the Bible? You are attempting I suppose to use the Old Testament to nullify the New Testament. But the Old Testament itself also contains the divine promise that God would make a new covenant and new testament with the house of Israel -
quote: This is the new covenant which Jesus spoke of in Luke 22:20. Your quotes are nice. But the way in which you intend to use them is no more clever than Satan's quoting of Scripture to tempt Jesus to jump of the pinnacle of the temple to show off in Matthew 4:6 "Then the devil took Him into the holy city and set Him on the wing of the temple, and said to Him, If You are the Son of God, cast Yourself down; for it is written, TO To His angels He shall give charge concerning You, and on their hands they shall bear You up, lest You strike Your foot against a stone." Jesus said to him, Again, it is written, "You shall not test the Lord your God." " You may think you are being clever. "Look I too can thump on the bible and make it look like the teaching of Jesus is against the word of God." You're not being clever. If you selectively quote as the devil quoted, I will also say to you "Again, it is written ..." . So we learn not just some of what the bible says. We learn all that it says. And we reason with Christ rather than without Christ.
2nd Timothy 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" "All scripture" is the operative phrase there. Selective usage to try to nullify the New Testament salvation is not clever.
You are not allowed to rewrite the Bible to fit with your individual notion of what it really says. it says so in the Bible, for God's sake Could you please QUOTE my "re-writings" of the Bible ?
I don't get how you can ignore what the bible actually says Maybe you have some supposed success in this cleverness on someone. Doesn't work here on me. You're just making a fool of yourself. If not though - QUOTE what I added as text to the Bible. QUOTE what I took away so as to diminish the text of the Bible. QUOTE where I changed the text of the Bible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2
|
There's an awful lot of discussion going on focusing on whether the Bible says God is "good" or "evil."
Oddly enough, that's not how we tell good from evil in any other circumstance. It takes very little effort to find some extremely reprehensible actions that are directly caused by or ordered by God in the Bible which are unquestionably evil - or would be considered so if absolutely any human being ever did such things (we can get into the special pleading later). Genocide is evil. Killing kids is evil. These are nigh-universally agreed moral principles. Yet if we take the Bible as a historical record, God committed the largest genocide ever seen - he damn near wiped out the entire species in the Flood. And then, later, he killed off all of the firstborn of Egypt, combining infanticide with genocide. For even one of these acts (and there are others, there's just no need to continue beyond the basic qualification) anyone would be universally condemned as "evil." If these acts on their own do not qualify the Biblical God as "evil," then there is no qualification that would be accepted; those who insist the Biblical God can still possibly be "good" are simply exempting their God from moral judgment - the Authoritarian argument that, since morality flows from the the Authority, and God is the Authority, God determines what is "good" and "bad" and there need be no consistency at all. Anything God does or orders is "good," even if the exact same action is "bad" in every other instance. It's entertaining that those who disdain moral relativism tend to be those who most strongly cling to authoritarianism, claiming its morality to offer a universal standard...so long as their authority doesn't change his mind, anyway. The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus "...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds ofvariously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3978 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.3 |
Rahvin writes: There's an awful lot of discussion going on focusing on whether the Bible says God is "good" or "evil." Oddly enough, that's not how we tell good from evil in any other circumstance. I recall from my Official High School Atheist Days my reluctance to accept that an intelligent friend genuinely believed in the God described in the Bible and accepted all the acts ascribed to that God as literal events. "But...but...then why do you worship that baby-killing SOB?" And I still don't get it. If I believed those things, I'd be looking to sign up with the Resistance.
quote: -from Buffy Sainte-Marie's cover of Leonard Cohen's The Partisan"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eli Member (Idle past 3492 days) Posts: 274 Joined:
|
kofh2u writes: And the "Flood" seems too analogous to the explosion of Modern man Out-of-Africa, 40 thousand years ago when, indeed, all other types of humanoids went extinct. The "flood" probably refers to the spreading of Modern Homo sapiens to the tops of the mountains and around all the world, as if water gushing across the whole land. No analogy there. Out of Africa theory starts 160,000 years ago, not 40,000. And no, not all other "humanoids" went extinct 40,000 years ago. And, no, Modern sapiens did not "flood" the whole world. On the other side of it, human evolution doesn't have anything analogous to all humans dying except 8 people or anything similar to the releasing of any doves or a rainbow covenant. There is not anything relevant to the topic under discussion in your post, either.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3820 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
There's an awful lot of discussion going on focusing on whether the Bible says God is "good" or "evil." Oddly enough, that's not how we tell good from evil in any other circumstance. The bible says "God is Love." But it also says God creates good and evil.This rather confirms the identification of this almighty as Reality, itself: Isa 45:7
I, (almighty Reality), form the light, and create darkness: I, (both Friend and Foe of the living), make peace, and create (the environment for possible great misfortune), evil: I, (both Friend and Foe to life and man), the LORD, (of the living), do all these things, (naturally, through the environmental forces).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3820 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
No analogy there. Out of Africa theory starts 160,000 years ago, not 40,000. And no, not all other "humanoids" went extinct 40,000 years ago. And, no, Modern sapiens did not "flood" the whole world.
Paleontologists tell us that Homo erectus migrated and returned again and again with periodic ice ages, before the last major exodus of Modern man from Africa, just 40,000 years ago and concurrent with the extinction of all other kinds of men. The "flood" of 40,000 years ago not only coincides with the mass extinction, but compares one-to-ne with the appearance of the Three Racial Stocks which Genesis calls Shem, Ham, and Japheth: Gen 5:32 And Noah, (an archaic type of Homo sapiens forebearer), was five hundred "years" old, (and the Flood will come when Noah is 600 "years" old: Gen 7:6) : and Noah begat Shem, (the Mongoloids), Ham, (the Negroids), and Japheth, (the Caucasians). Note that these thre racial stocks would have existed 100,000 years before the exodus had begun in full scale, since Noah was 500 years old at their birth but 600 years old went they "flooded" out of Africa. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide content and banner.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eli Member (Idle past 3492 days) Posts: 274 Joined: |
kofh2u writes: Paleontologists tell us that Homo erectus migrated and returned again and again with periodic ice ages, before the last major exodus of Modern man from Africa, just 40,000 years ago and concurrent with the extinction of all other kinds of men. The "flood" of 40,000 years ago not only coincides with the mass extinction, but compares one-to-ne with the appearance of the Three Racial Stocks which Genesis calls Shem, Ham, and Japheth:
See? This is the crap I was talking about. Paleontologists tell us no such thing. Chris Stringer, who now has doubts about the theory, is the originator and in his Out of Africa model, homo sapiens leave Africa in waves starting 160-180,000 years ago and the last migrations took place 40-60,000 years ago. There was no mass extinction. The other hominids gradually died off in seperate periods of time. You are talking absolute bulsshit. And there is no "conciding with racial stocks." From a biological standpoint, there are no races. btw, your Noah claim is retarded. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide content and banner.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
message 1 writes: For the purpose of this topic the Christian god exists and the bible is 100% accurate. some examplesExodus The Israelites get in to Egypt because of a famine they get enslaved .... Moses comes along and god sends 10 punishments because the PHARAOH does not let the Israelites go free. 1. Water to blood2. frogs 3. Lice 4. Flies 5. Livestock desiesed 6. Boils 7. Thunder hail 8. Locusts 9. Darkness 10. Death of first-borns Now exempt from harm from these plagues where obviously the Israelites, but the Pharaoh was also exempt from harm the actual guy who said no had nothing happen to him, His inocent child got killed and the innocent children of the land of Egypt the people of Egypt suffered but the man who said no and angered god got of scot free. The Israelites went out of Egypt then god split the waters so they could pass had a pillar of fire standing so the Egyptians could not follow then removed the pillar when the Israelites where safe on the other side knowing that Pharaohs armies would follow then he drowned them. The Israelites after 40 years came to the promise land. Filled with other civilisations gods orders where, to utterly destroy them make no covenant with them and show them no mercy, when it came to the amalecs he ordered to kill everything man women babe sucking unborn, donkeys camels .... On his way to the amalecs Saul met the Kenites urging them to flee what did god pleased with Sauls mercy? No he wasent. When Saul decided not to kill the animals but use them to feed his people was god pleased wit his charity? NOgod rejected him as king to please his god he braught the king AGAG and hacked him to pieces before the lord. Are this the action of a Good being? Example 2: David who married Batshiba, against the wishes of god how did god punish David? God said since you have sinned me THE CHILD WILL DIE. an innocent child again. And was this child to die suddenly and painlessly no for 7 days he suffered. How can a good being punish an innocent child? What about the flood?What did the people do to warent such genocide such slaughter what did the children do? what did the sucklings do? what did the babes in their mothers wombs do? Is the flood an action of a good and just good? Note also the topic title: "Is God Good?". Shall we try to have all messages somehow connect up with the real original topic theme? AdminnemooseusOr something like that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3820 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
Chris seems to say what I just posted, that Mocern man appears in large numbers throughout Europe starting about 40,000 years ago whileover those same 40 "days" the Neandethals disappeared. The Three Racial Stock Theory is science su The present seven gentically certified racial difference in us today are the consequences of further differentiation from those three stocks of 160,000 years ago:
I can't get too farofftopic because the mods hate the truth i post about the bible.They will suspdndme for being off topic. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide content and banner.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eli Member (Idle past 3492 days) Posts: 274 Joined: |
kofh2u writes: The present seven gentically certified racial difference in us today are the consequences of further differentiation from those three stocks of 160,000 years ago: What does this pseudoscience have to do with the topic? If you are going to make things up, at least keep it relevant to the op. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hide content and banner.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3820 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
What about the flood? What did the people do to warent such genocide such slaughter what did the children do? what did the sucklings do? what did the babes in their mothers wombs do? Is the flood an action of a good and just good? Note also the topic title: "Is God Good?". Shall we try to have all messages somehow connect up with the real original topic theme?
Before I get suspended I need a lesson in how it is possible to "talk" to the people here with out be accused of changing the subject. Maybe you could give me a pointer or two. In regard to this opening post above, (which accuses god of being evil because he uses Evolution as a means of allowing life to co-exist with "him,"), I attack the thread's rationale and facts. I also suggest that the original post shows that the author has never stopped to define God.He forges ahead with self righteous criticism that he encourages people to discuss with him. Where did i go wrong here???? Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kofh2u Member (Idle past 3820 days) Posts: 1162 From: phila., PA Joined: |
I recall from my Official High School Atheist Days my reluctance to accept that an intelligent friend genuinely believed in the God described in the Bible and accepted all the acts ascribed to that God as literal events. "But...but...then why do you worship that baby-killing SOB?" And I still don't get it.
You'll NEVER get "it" at this site because the censorship will keep you in the dark.You have a need for some intelligent person to teach you how to read so you could learn to deduce from the facts the bible sets before you. Since the moderaters limit me to discussing the issue of why god is evil, instead of if he is really good,... you will just wallow in ignorance as is the case whenever supression reigns over the freedom of speech. Edited by kofh2u, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024