Message of the Bible

Willowtree, He died. That was it. It might have been a painful death but nonetheless simply death. How is this a "great" sacrifice to an immortal being? A "great" sacrifice would be spending a hundred million years in hell. I am sorry but I don't see how this is any big deal. But if he controls the world why doesn't he simply remove freewill and make us all evil? Also why is it that Atheists that have no "connection" to god are not murdering, raping, and stealing as ordered by Satan. Native Americans? First of all that is a blatant lie, Atheism has been around almost as long as religion if not longer. Secondly have you even considered that Atheists could actually want to see some evidence instead of believing blindly? As is your assumption that those people did have knowledge of god. Not really, just to the seriousness of gods violent responses. So god would prefer it if we didn't use our freewill at all and just do what he says, right? So if I give some 5 year old kid on the street a gun it is the kids' fault if the gun gets fired? I have said this before, it doesn't matter if there is one exception or a million either god is omniscient or he is not. There is no middle ground.

About this "free-will" discussion: There are too many
scriptures in the OT and NT that refute such an idea, plus, it just
wouldn't make sense.Keep in mind that I'm a christian, lol(seriously!).People always say that "God will never force himself on
anyone", and in the same breath make the statement, "God is
All-Powerful". So let me ask you all a question. If God is ALL
powerful, then that would mean that no one else has any power,
correct?
The word "all" is one of the strongest words in the english
language. It's right up there with the word's "yes" and
"no" and "everything" and "nowhere" and
"none"................the word "all" is an
absolute word, meaning that it's all-inclusive, there's nothing left
out of the word "all". I once told this to someone and they
told me that the word "all" wasn't absolute, but a
mysterious word. I wanted to kick my computer when he typed that in.
People, christians, religous people try to make everything so
spiritual and deep, but there's nothing deep about the word
"all". For example, if you have a bag of chips, and I ask
you to give me "all" of your chips, and you give me two
chips, well then, YOU DIDN'T GIVE ME WHAT I ASKED FOR, DID YOU!
Therefore, I conclude that the word "all" is an absolute
word.
Now that that point has been made, back to the original one I was
trying to make.
If God is ALL powerful, like some proclaim that he is, then that
would mean that no one else has any power, because he has
"all" of it, and to say that God won't force himself on you
is just preposterous (hope I spelled that right, lol), because to say
that the same God that you proclaim to have ALL power has to force
ANYTHING to happen would be a contradiction. To say that God forces
ANYTHING is to say that there is ANOTHER force in the universe
capable of giving the ALL powerful being resistance, but, because he
is the force that causes all other forces to be, it's no longer a
matter of forcing, but of his will being accomplished!
The longer you think about it, free will can't exist, because if it
truly existed you could choose not to die!, but we know that it is
appointed to each man once to die (Heb.9:27).....For in Adam
"ALL" died (1Cor.15:22), so there's no escaping that.
According to the bible, your already dead, if you want to be
technical (how do you escape that reality if you have a free moral
agency?)
You know, it's hilarious, and at the same time sickening to realize
that the ones who go to the scriptures to justify their claims of
"free thought", otherwise none as "free moral
agency", they'll skip over completely the verses, scriptures,
even whole chapters that condradict their beliefs. I was brought up
to believe that the bible never, ever condradicted itself, that it
never cancelled itself out. I've not always agreed with the things
that I've written to this forum (whoever "chooses" to read
it), but I'll say this, that if your going to use a scripture, then
it most stand at FULL STRENGTH, regardless of what the others
scriptures say, because each scripture MUST be in perfect harmony one
with another. If not, then the book is a lie, and if I ever find that
out (which I know I won't) I'll quit just as soon as I do. You can't
pick and choose which scriptures you want, and which ones you don't.
It's the whole book, or none of it, if your going to call yourself a
christian.

From how I read it, Eve was deceived and I didn't see the part where He allows the deception. The law was given to the Jews, not Himself. You'll notice it says "thou" and not, we. I reckon if mankind was holy as God, there would be no problems.
But no, first thing you know somebody kills their own brother.
Suppose you had two sons, and one of them killed the other, what would you do? Ahh, war. Generally being honest with your adversary puts you at a disadvantage resulting in failure/death. If you came to me and asked if you could jump off a cliff, and I said sure and you came back mangled, how is it proof that I lied?

Gal 6:7

Be not deceived: God is not mocked ; for whatever a man shall sow, that also shall he reap.

Were does it say that? The clensing? That was comon practice, its even in leviticus. You have to clense after bloodshed etc. Besides earlyer on before teh sige moses explicitly tells them to keep the virgins.Your argument makes no sense.

Can you be more specific? In the verse supplied it specifically refers the reason beside bloodshed.Have ye kept alive every female? 16 lo, they--they have been to the sons of Israel, through the word of Balaam, to cause a trespass against Jehovah in the matter of Peor, and the plague is in the company of Jehovah.Do you still think it was God's idea or the soldiers idea to keep the virgins?

Well, Im not sure if I'm getting you, but let me present it as I understand it:1)The isrealites sack the city, and capture all the women and chilldren. 2) The isrealite soldiers come back with their loot and present it before moses and Eleazar. 3) The preists come out and they get angry. 4)Moses says why the heck did you save ALL the women and children? These folks made god give us a plague? 4)So Moses says, kill all the non-virgins and children. But you can keep the virgins for yourselves. That's pretty bad stuff. They kept the women and chilldren alive. I mean isn't that an old code of warfare? Spare the women and children? Perhapse the isrealits were showing some mercy.But no, Moses says "Just the virgins, fellas", and you can "keep them for yourselves!" wooo hooo!!Ahem.... ya...So you see were Im comin from now? Why the virgins? Why are they not as evil? Heck, why are the babys not as evil?[This message has been edited by Yaro, 01-14-2004]

The purpose of this reply is to let you know that I read your post.First, your belief that I am personally demonizing individual atheists is not true. Whatever agruments I direct at atheists are meant toward their ideology.In other topics I have repeatedly said atheists are brilliant and it is not a matter of opinion. Theists make me more mad than any atheist ever could.Because, in another topic, you made some sarcastic comment about Dr. Scott, I will use this as an excuse to say the following.I believe Dr. Scott is the greatest scholar alive. And it is atheists who made Dr. Scott what he is. It was atheists who trained, educated, and promoted Dr. Scott at Stanford. Dr. Scott called these men " men of renoun....men who have more integrity in the tip of their little finger than all of the christians I have ever met..."These atheists taught him that you WILL ONLY conclude based upon proven facts. If a fact is introduced that contradicts something you have already spoken up for then you must rearrange your beliefs instantly to reflect that fact.These atheists produced the brightest mind of our generation and the greatest authority in Biblical doctrine alive today.Some people call what I said hero worship - I believe it is self evident truth. But let not my view of Dr. Scott steal the limelight - the brilliant of the brilliant, the atheist Professors of Stanford circa 1950's are the hero's and their methodolgy for determining truth.As far as the substance of your post, I honestly believe that your understanding of the claims of basic christianity are far too incomplete to have any type of meaningful debate.If you cannot at least demonstrate a basic knowledge as to what Jesus di on the cross then we have nothing to debate. I am not intending to insult you at all but I cannot debate with someone that doesn't understand the basics.

WillowtreeThis is to let you know that I have read your response to Rand Al'Thor and your slippery response. This is taken from the website Bible Basics"The Bible as a whole, is a witness to what God has done since the beginning of time. The climax or pinnacle of the Bible is Jesus - God's coming to earth as a man (incarnate). The Old Testament is the history of God's work through the nation of Israel (or the Hebrew people) to the world in preparation for Jesus and was written at different time periods from about 1400 B.C. until 400 B.C.. The New Testament is the witness of Jesus' coming, life, teachings, work, and the ramifications of these to the people of that time and in the future till the end of time"Seems like a simple enough message yet you refuse to answer just how God becoming a man and then sacrificing his only son [who is {surprise!}himself] then gathers a bunch of worshippers around him and after showing off miracles commits suicide? by allowing himself to die upon a cross while displaying a weird split in his psyche as demonstrated by this passage. As Rand Al'Thor and I have both stated in this forum how does the dying on the cross and someone accepting Christ as saviour eliminate even the most vile and despicable of crimes against people?
If Christ were to serve in your place in hell being tortured by the same things you would have and do that for every 'saved' person then it makes sense but otherwise it means that you can be as bad as you want and honestly submit and the end of your life and all is forgiven?Maybe the problem in our understanding of the basics is that you do not understand them well enough to explain it. Perhaps Dr. Scott is actually just a simple man like yourself and is simply giving another take on a book that is myth and fable intersrersed with occasional wisdom. Either way you are avoiding the actual work of having to think for yourself without Scott's help and that IMO is why you will not contend with us on these very serious discrepencies.Good Day.

Yaro,Perhaps some of the soldiers were looking for wives.

Deut 21:10

​

When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and Jehovah thy God delivereth them into thy hands, and thou hast taken captives of them, 11 and thou seest among the captives a woman of beautiful form, and hast a desire unto her, and takest her as thy wife; 12 then thou shalt bring her home to thy house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; 13 and she shall put the clothes of her captivity from off her, and shall abide in thy house, and bewail her father and mother a full month, and afterwards thou mayest go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. 14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go according to her desire; but thou shalt in no wise sell her for money; thou shalt not treat her as a slave , because thou hast humbled her.

It still dosn't detract from the horror of it. These women were forced to marry the very people who have just killd their parents, brothers, sisters, friends, etc.Who cares what the soldiers are looking for. It is still rape if someone is expected to serve as a wife to someone she is not willingly married to.Didn't you notice how your last quote never mentions the womans feelings about the whole thing?It says if you see a pretty girl and you take her to be your wife.... etc. etc.Not to mention the fact that back in those days, takeing someone to be your wife simply ment you had sex with her.

Some definite cultural differences back then. I think there is a bit more to it than your claimed fact.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.

​

Thou shalt not desire thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not desire thy neighbour's wife , nor his bondman, nor his handmaid, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbour's.

​

If thou buy a Hebrew bondman, six years shall he serve; and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. 3 If he came in alone, he shall go out alone: if he had a wife , then his wife shall go out with him.

​

And if a man seduce a virgin that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall certainly endow her, to be his wife . 17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall weigh money according to the dowry of virgins.

​

And thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife , to become unclean with her.

​

And a man that committeth adultery with a man's wife , who committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife , --the adulterer and the adulteress shall certainly be put to death

​

And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is infamy: they shall burn him and them with fire, that there be no infamy among you.
etc etc,

Well, your right, I did put it a bit trivialy. But even the laws you point out do illustrate the fact that marrige and sex were very close back in the OT.I mean, if you sleped with someone, you were considered married to her no ifs, ands, or buts.Reason virginity was so prized back in those days was because it was the only way to ensure it was your child. Remember, there was no DNA tests or Sonograms etc. So there was no way of making sure your baby was yours unless you were the only one.So the knife cut both ways, you sleep with a girl, your stuck with her. etc.

Hi, Not exactly. A man could divorce a woman whenever he wanted to, he just needed two people to witness him saying to his wife 'I divorce you' three times and he was divorced.Of course, it was only a man who was allowed to divorce, a woman could not divorce a man.Oh, and remember Deuteronomy 21:14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go according to her desire; but thou shalt in no wise sell her for money; thou shalt not treat her as a slave , because thou hast humbled her. So if you are not happy with her, you can get rid of her.YHWH is so worthy of our praise, how can someone not worship this all loving God?

My bad,Thanks for the correction Brian.

Simplicity appears to have advantages, even when those things are not simple. Stuck in a bad way, even if not with her in person.
Proverbs 7:25

​

Let not thy heart decline to her ways, go not astray in her paths: 26 for she hath cast down many wounded, and all slain by her were strong. 27 Her house is the way to Sheol, going down to the chambers of death.

​

1 Cor 6:16 Do ye not know that he [that is] joined to the harlot is one body? for the two, he says, shall be one flesh.