If God is good, then why does he seem to be all about hatred and punishment?

[amyluv]

In another thread, it seems that one issue many have with The Bible
and the religion it speaks on, is that it's full of blood and gore and
hatred and punishment.

I won't pretend to know everything there is to know about The Bible.
I do have a few facts and such, however I'm not a bible scholar. And
even if I was, nobody can know everything about God. We can only know
what he left for us to know.

Anyway, I wrestled with this question myself for quite some time, and
here's where I landed:

God's job can be most closely related on earth to a Judge in a
courtroom. So, if someone who has clearly broken the law comes before
the judge, the case is made and won, and the Judge hands down a
punishment. Is he a good judge or a bad judge?

If a judge refused to punish rapists, murderers, child molesters,
thieves, etc., we'd call him a corrupt judge.

But what about smaller crimes? Shouldn't the punishment be less
severe? Absolutely. But there is always some sort of a price to pay
when a wrong is done, even outside the courts.

Lets say I'm caught doing something, and they take me to court. I'm
proven without a shadow of a doubt to be guilty. The judge hands me a
500,000 fine, either I pay it or go to jail. I don't have 500,000, so
as their handcuffing me and getting ready to ship me off, somebody I
don't even know stands up and says "I'll pay it for her".

Another similar example:

A woman comes before a judge for prostitution and drug trafficking
with intent to sell (I don''t know what the exact terminology is, but
you get my point). The evidence against her is air-tight. So, the
judge gives her a 30,000 fine. He then steps down from the judge's
seat, takes off his judge's robe, and walks over the cashier and pays
the 30,000 for her. Why? Because she was his daughter and he loved
her. He would have been a corrupt judge if he hadn't given out the
fine, however he is also a loving dad so he paid the fine for her.

God is our judge, and as so, if he IS right and good, then he has to
allow punishments. However, because he does also love us, he stepped
out of heaven, became a man, and paid the price. "He paid a debt he
did not owe because we owed a debt we could not pay".

[random]

On Jul 13, 11:34 pm, amyluv <wright_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In another thread, it seems that one issue many have with The Bible
> and the religion it speaks on, is that it's full of blood and gore and
> hatred and punishment.
>
> I won't pretend to know everything there is to know about The Bible.
> I do have a few facts and such, however I'm not a bible scholar. And
> even if I was, nobody can know everything about God. We can only know
> what he left for us to know.
>
> Anyway, I wrestled with this question myself for quite some time, and
> here's where I landed:
>
> God's job can be most closely related on earth to a Judge in a
> courtroom. So, if someone who has clearly broken the law comes before
> the judge, the case is made and won, and the Judge hands down a
> punishment. Is he a good judge or a bad judge?
>
> If a judge refused to punish rapists, murderers, child molesters,
> thieves, etc., we'd call him a corrupt judge.
>
> But what about smaller crimes? Shouldn't the punishment be less
> severe? Absolutely. But there is always some sort of a price to pay
> when a wrong is done, even outside the courts.
>

Think about why we have courts, laws and justice systems:

1) By threats, you aim for the less moral people who needs fear to
prevent them from committing crimes.
2) Trials make people understand by example, of what the government
sees as right and wrong.
3) By catching an locking away the "bad guys", you make the streets
safer.


Now if you think about it, the two reasons are meaningless with a
faith based system.
The "court" is hidden, so you will not be afraid of it unless you
already believe in it, and it has no effect of your understanding of
what God actually wants.
The criminals are caught and punished only when they can't do any harm
anyway.

So what's the point?

> Lets say I'm caught doing something, and they take me to court. I'm
> proven without a shadow of a doubt to be guilty. The judge hands me a
> 500,000 fine, either I pay it or go to jail. I don't have 500,000, so
> as their handcuffing me and getting ready to ship me off, somebody I
> don't even know stands up and says "I'll pay it for her".
>
> Another similar example:
>
> A woman comes before a judge for prostitution and drug trafficking
> with intent to sell (I don''t know what the exact terminology is, but
> you get my point). The evidence against her is air-tight. So, the
> judge gives her a 30,000 fine. He then steps down from the judge's
> seat, takes off his judge's robe, and walks over the cashier and pays
> the 30,000 for her. Why? Because she was his daughter and he loved
> her. He would have been a corrupt judge if he hadn't given out the
> fine, however he is also a loving dad so he paid the fine for her.
>

That will work with a fine, which is usually for lesser crimes. But it
will not work with jail sentences, and certainly not with executions,
for a very good reason, even if someone will INSIST to pay for your
crime.

[The Belly Bionic]

The problem with this is that the god in the Bible is nothing like
either of the hypothetical judges in your argument. The judges you're
talking about are giving just and fair punishments. If we're going to
use hypothetical courtroom scenarios, then how about this one:

A man comes before the judge charged with fraud, murder, whatever, the
crime itself doesn't really matter. The man is convicted, and a
punishment needs to be given. The judge decides that the punishment for
this crime is that the judge is going to kill one of your children.
Now, you've never met this guy who committed the crime. No one in your
family has ever met him, and certainly didn't have anything to do with
his crime. That doesn't matter. The punishment for some guy you've
never met committing a crime that had nothing to do with you is that one
of your children needs to die.

After less than a day of hearing cases and convicting criminals (and
there are no acquittals, as far as the judge is concerned, everyone is
guilty just by virtue of being alive), the judge decides that your whole
state is just so full of criminals that it's beyond help. So the judge
(who is all-powerful, so no one has any hope of stopping him) decides
that because of a few purse-snatchers, muggers, bank robbers, murderers,
drug dealers, plus quite a few people who have been convicted of crimes
that the judge just made up on the spot, he's going to just drop a nuke
that will take out the whole state and everyone in it. The newborn
babies in the hospital maternity wards? Guilty by association, he's
just handing out just punishment. Little kids on their way to school?
Totally beyond redemption, they deserve to die.

Of course, the judge will let a few people live. Hypothetically, lets
say you get to be one of the chosen few who survives the nuclear bomb.
After the judge has wiped out everyone you've ever met, including your
entire family, he expects you to thank him. After he's just wiped out
millions of people, you'd better get down on your knees and say 'thank
you'. And make him believe it. Because he says he did it all out of
love, and you'd sure as hell better love him back, or he's going to make
you pay.

I don't know who this tough but fair judge is that you're talking about,
but he's not in any Bible I've ever read.

[Brock]

On Jul 13, 5:29 pm, The Belly Bionic <bellybio...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't know who this tough but fair judge is that you're talking about,
> but he's not in any Bible I've ever read.

The problem could be the measure by which you judge "fairness".
Certainly Job testified differently than you do:

"“In truth I know that this is so;
But how can a man be in the right before God?
“If one wished to dispute with Him,
He could not answer Him once in a thousand times.
“Wise in heart and mighty in strength,
Who has defied Him without harm?"[1]

Regards,

Brock

[1] http://nasb.scripturetext.com/job/9.htm v 1-4

[Belly Bionic]

So you would say punishing the innocent for crimes they had no part in
is "fair?"

[Dag Yo]

This isn't justice Amy. What you're describing is a scenario in which
some people deserving of punishment get off scott-free because they
happened to be born in the right part of the world at the right time,
and happened to find some arguments convincing that they might not
have -- while other people deserving of punishment receive their
punishment because they weren't born in the right part of the world at
the right time, or didn't happen to find some arguments convincing.

[and yes there are more problems than that, but the fact remains that
there is nothing fair about this system]

[Brock Organ]

On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 6:32 PM, Belly Bionic <belly...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So you would say punishing the innocent for crimes they had no part in
> is "fair?"

I would simply note that your characterization is incomplete. :)

Adam and Eve represented the human race in God's covenant of works;
when they rebelled, all of humankind was represented in that failure.
As the Confession notes:

"Our first parents, begin seduced by the subtlety and temptations of
Satan, sinned in eating the forbidden fruit. This their sin God was
pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel, to permit, having
purposed to order it to his own glory. By this sin they fell from
their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became
dead in sin, and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul
and body. They being the root of mankind, the guilt of this sin was
imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to
all their posterity, descending from them by original generation."[1]

Of course, representation works not only against us through Adam, but
for us in God's plan of redemption and salvation! The Lord Jesus,
with His death on the cross and resurrection, represents and mediates
for all of humankind that accepts the gift of God's salvation:

"Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that
covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the
covenant of grace: wherein he freely offered unto sinners life and
salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they
may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained
unto life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to
believe."[2]

Regards,

Brock

[1] http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html Ch 6 S 1-3
[2] http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html Ch 7 S 3

[The Belly Bionic]

The fact that you have a hard on for the Westminster Confession does
nothing to change the fact that punishing a whole bunch of people for
the "crimes" of someone else, who the group being punished has never
even met, is not fair by any sane definition.

Everything following should be assumed to contain the phrases "If the
Bible were true" and "If the Christian god existed" where appropriate:
Adam and Eve represented humanity only because God decided they did.
They needed to be tempted only because God wanted it that way. They
needed to be cast out of the garden for it only because God made the
decision to cast them out, even though he's the one who set them up in
the first place. All of humanity was punished for their "sin" only
because God wanted to punish all of humanity. Jesus needed to be born
and then sacrificed only because God decided that's what he wanted. At
any point, God could have just made the decision to forgive everyone, no
strings attached. If he was unable to make that decision, then he's not
much of a god. If any of us need forgiveness, it's only because God
made the decision for it to be that way. Which is why the Christian god
is, at best, a psychopath and Christianity is a morally bankrupt system
of worship.

[Drafterman]

There are some problems with your examples.

In the second example a judge would never oversee the case involving
someone they know, especially not a daughter. Conflict of interested.
Using your logic God shouldn't judge any of us, since we are all,
allegedly, his children. A judge that payed the fine for any of people
whose case he oversaw would probably be investigated, disbarred, or
what-have-you. It's clearly a violation of ethics.

Those details aside, they do not accurately represent the relationship
between God and us. Here is a more accurate example:

Judge: Do you believe in me?
Defendant 1: What?
Judge: You didn't answer "Yes" in the allotted time. Death.
Defendant 1: But all I did was steal a candy bar!
Judge: Next! Do you believe in me?
Defendant 2: Well, now I do...
Judge: Explain.
Defendant 2: Well, I didn't know who you were till I got here. There
really wasn't an indication that you existed outside this courtroom.
Judge: Gotchya. Death!
Defendant 2: But I'm not even on trial here, I'm in the gallery! I
haven't broken any laws!
Judge: Next! Ooh, this should be interesting. A triple homicide. Do
you believe in me?
Defendant 3: Yup, always have.
Judge: Innocent. Court dismissed.

[Brock Organ]

On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 8:27 PM, The Belly Bionic <belly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The fact that you have a hard on for the Westminster Confession

6) The Westminster Confession of Faith contains useful summary
references to many of the propositional truths of the Bible

> does
> nothing to change the fact that punishing a whole bunch of people for
> the "crimes" of someone else, who the group being punished has never
> even met, is not fair by any sane definition.

Well, the objective evaluation of such a premise is precisely the
point Job was making:

""In truth I know that this is so;
But how can a man be in the right before God?
"If one wished to dispute with Him,
He could not answer Him once in a thousand times.
"Wise in heart and mighty in strength,
Who has defied Him without harm?"[1]

You presume to be able to adequately evaluate God's actions and
motives. I suspect you seriously overestimate your abilities. Of
course, the Bible reveals His character and attributes and nature to
be quite different. As the Confession notes:

"God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of himself;
and is alone in and unto himself all-sufficient, not standing in need
of any creatures which he hath made, nor deriving any glory from them,
but only manifesting his own glory in, by, unto, and upon them; he is
the alone foundation of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom,
are all things; and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by
them, for them, or upon them, whatsoever himself pleaseth. In his
sight all things are open and manifest; his knowledge is infinite,
infallible, and independent upon the creature; so as nothing is to him
contingent or uncertain. He is most holy in all his counsels, in all
his works, and in all his commands. To him is due from angels and men,
and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience he
is pleased to require of them."[1]

Quite pertinent to your point is a subset of the quotation:

"God ... is the alone foundation of all being, of whom, through whom,
and to whom, are all things; and hath most sovereign dominion over
them, to do by them, for them, or upon them, whatsoever himself
pleaseth. ... To him is due from angels and men, and every other
creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience he is pleased to
require of them."[1]

Of course, if you presume that His punishment for sin is not fair,
I'll disagree, but there is something else about it that I agree is
not fair:

God's plan for salvation.

From my point of view, there's nothing fair about it. Its a divine
transaction where Christ got to bear believer's sin and bore the
penalty in His person. Believers who accept the gospel, in turn,
receive credit for Christ's good standing and His righteousness. Its
a complete lopsided equation and all in the believer's favor. There
is no merit that I or any other sinner can bring to deserve such
wonderful treatment! It is complete largesse and sovereign
condescension on God's part, and I praise God for His wonderful plan!
And His wonderful love! :)

> Adam and Eve represented humanity only because God decided they did.

Of course, you are not careful in your analysis, and omit the fact
that all 3 persons involved in the garden exercised a moral agency
that God gave them. Satan is guilty of temptation to sin, not God.
Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, and not God. God is not guilty
of sin.

> They needed to be tempted only because God wanted it that way. They
> needed to be cast out of the garden for it only because God made the
> decision to cast them out, even though he's the one who set them up in
> the first place.

The Bible teaches that God does not tempt to sin. Of course, God does
require an obedience to His sovereign laws and decrees, and it is our
duty to be obedient. But for a human to disobey His law does not make
God guilty of sin. It makes the human guilty of sin.

> All of humanity was punished for their "sin" only
> because God wanted to punish all of humanity.

I like how the Confession notes:

"After God had made all other creatures, he created man, male and
female, with reasonable and immortal souls, endued with knowledge,
righteousness, and true holiness after his own image, having the law
of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfill it; and yet under
a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own
will, which was subject unto change. Besides this law written in their
hearts, they received a command not to eat of the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil; which while they kept were happy in their
communion with God, and had dominion over the creatures."[3]

> Jesus needed to be born
> and then sacrificed

I don't believe you're correct to frame this in a context of God's
"needs". As the Confession notes:

"God ... is alone in and unto himself all-sufficient, not standing in
need of any creatures which he hath made"[4]

> only because God decided that's what he wanted.

The Confession notes differently:

"Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all
supposed conditions; yet hath he not decreed any thing because he
foresaw it as future, as that which would come to pass, upon such
conditions."[5]

and:

"God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is
neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined to
good or evil."[6]

> At
> any point, God could have just made the decision to forgive everyone

Or alternatively, He could have justly made the decision to not
forgive anyone. But I like how Augustine put it:

"God judged it better to bring good out of evil than to suffer no evil
to exist."[7]

> If any of us need forgiveness, it's only because God
> made the decision for it to be that way.

The Confession notes differently:

"The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of
God, so far manifest themselves in his providence, that it extendeth
itself even to the first Fall, and all other sins of angels and men,
and that not by a bare permission, but such as hath joined with it a
most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering and governing
of them, in a manifold dispensation, to his own holy ends; yet so, as
the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from
God; who being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the
author or approver of sin."[8]

Which I think is a slightly more verbose way of saying what Augustine said:

"God judged it better to bring good out of evil than to suffer no evil
to exist."[7]

> Which is why the Christian god
> is, at best, a psychopath

He is exquisitely Holy, high and puissant. As the Confession notes:

"There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being
and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or
passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty,
most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute, working all things
according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will,
for his won glory, most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering,
abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and
sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek him; and withal most
just and terrible in his judgments; hating all sin; and who will by no
means clear the guilty."[9]

> and Christianity is a morally bankrupt system
> of worship

I prefer how the Confession indicates:

"He is most holy in all his counsels, in all his works, and in all his
commands. To him is due from angels and men, and every other creature,
whatsoever worship, service, or obedience he is pleased to require of
them."[10]

Regards,

Brock

[1] http://nasb.scripturetext.com/job/9.htm v 1-4

[2] http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html Ch 2 S 2
[3] http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html Ch 4 S 2
[4] http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html Ch 4 S 2
[5] http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html Ch 3 S 2
[6] http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html Ch 9 S 1
[7] http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/s/saintaugus158175.html
[8] http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html Ch 5 S 4
[9] http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html Ch 2 S 1
[10] http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html Ch 2 S 2

[Dag Yo]

This is your chance Brock. Because these Oregonians are being nice
enough and want people to have a chance for a fresh start i've decided
to honor that instead of telling you to fuck off. So how about being
reasonable for a change and chatting things out like a decent human
being?

On Jul 13, 7:44 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

Can you demonstrate that the confession is the correct interpretation
of these things -- and if not, why should we care what it says.

We're here to discuss the issues Brock, it's not a game of trivia
about how The Confession phrases things. If you believe someone is
wrong then tell them why in your own words.

> [2]http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.htmlCh 2 S 2
> [3]http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.htmlCh 4 S 2
> [4]http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.htmlCh 4 S 2
> [5]http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.htmlCh 3 S 2
> [6]http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.htmlCh 9 S 1
> [7]http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/s/saintaugus158175.html
> [8]http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.htmlCh 5 S 4
> [9]http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.htmlCh 2 S 1

[Stephen]

On Jul 14, 5:34 am, amyluv <wright_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In another thread, it seems that one issue many have with The Bible
> and the religion it speaks on, is that it's full of blood and gore and
> hatred and punishment.
>
> I won't pretend to know everything there is to know about The Bible.
> I do have a few facts and such, however I'm not a bible scholar.  And
> even if I was, nobody can know everything about God.  We can only know
> what he left for us to know.

S: A man picks up sticks on a Saturday. I get a group of my mates and
stone him to death. Have I done anything wrong, according to the
Bible?

[Dag Yo]

Well if thats the way you're playing it Stephen then why don't you
just save up a bit of money and start raping women because God really
doesn't have much against that either?

[Belly Bionic]

On Jul 13, 7:44 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> You presume to be able to adequately evaluate God's actions and
> motives.  I suspect you seriously overestimate your abilities. Of
> course, the Bible reveals His character and attributes and nature to
> be quite different.  

As a reasonable, moral person, I'm perfectly capable of evaluating
such obviously self-serving and evil behavior. My opinion of his
character and attributes is taken directly from the Bible, so the
Bible does not, in fact, reveal his character to be different from my
description of it. The fact that you choose to ignore the parts of
the Bible which are inconvenient for you does nothing to change what
the Bible actually says.

> Of course, if you presume that His punishment for sin is not fair,
> I'll disagree, but there is something else about it that I agree is
> not fair:
>
> God's plan for salvation.
>
> From my point of view, there's nothing fair about it.  

No, there isn't anything fair about it. God demanded that humans
sacrifice his own earthly form to himself to save his creation from
his own wrath. That's not even remotely fair, it's completely insane.

> Its a divine
> transaction where Christ got to bear believer's sin and bore the
> penalty in His person.  Believers who accept the gospel, in turn,
> receive credit for Christ's good standing and His righteousness.  Its
> a complete lopsided equation and all in the believer's favor.  There
> is no merit that I or any other sinner can bring to deserve such
> wonderful treatment!  It is complete largesse and sovereign
> condescension on God's part, and I praise God for His wonderful plan!
> And His wonderful love! :)

Right. His wonderful love of sending anyone who failed to worship him
to be horrifically tortured for eternity.

> > Adam and Eve represented humanity only because God decided they did.
>
> Of course, you are not careful in your analysis, and omit the fact
> that all 3 persons involved in the garden exercised a moral agency
> that God gave them.  Satan is guilty of temptation to sin, not God.
> Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, and not God.  God is not guilty
> of sin.

God created sin. Sin only exists if God says it does. Your "fact" is
nothing of the sort. God could have chosen not to put the tree in the
middle of the garden. God could have given Adam ad Eve the knowledge
of good and evil (in other words, the ability to understand right and
wrong) right from the beginning. God could have kept Satan out of the
garden. God could have chosen not to create Satan in the first
place. If the Bible is to be believed, then every single thing that
happened in the garden happened because God set it up that way. If
we're to believe the Bible, then God is absolutely culpable for every
single thing that happened in the story.

> The Bible teaches that God does not tempt to sin.  Of course, God does
> require an obedience to His sovereign laws and decrees, and it is our
> duty to be obedient.  But for a human to disobey His law does not make
> God guilty of sin.  It makes the human guilty of sin.

So what? The Bible teaches any number of things that are demonstrably
false. Teaching that God does not tempt to sin even though God does
just that over and over again in the same book that claims he does not
is only one example of many of the Bible teaching obvious falsehoods.

> I don't believe you're correct to frame this in a context of God's
> "needs".

As we've seen, you believe lots of things that are false, and
disbelieve lots of things that are true.

> Or alternatively, He could have justly made the decision to not
> forgive anyone.  

Precisely. And that would be just another example of the evil of your
deity.

> He is exquisitely Holy, high and puissant.  

Why? Can you explain your opinion on this without resorting to
endlessly cutting and pasting the words of others? Are you capable of
articulating a single thought that hasn't been spoon fed to you?

[4praise]

Is that really your take on the Christian message? If so then me and
my fellow Christians have done a pretty poor job at proclaiming it.
Could I take a quick stab at it now?

The judge's first act was that he only made one law - that's it, just
one. But that one law was violated. The judge had warned that
violating that one law would have severe consequences, not only for
the perpetrators but on their offspring. At the time that the law was
broken, the judge himself already had a plan for getting things back
to the state they were in before that law was broken. (This is what
you are describing - those consequences).

Time passed and the consequences that were warned of came to pass.
But even in the midst of the dire consequences of that crime, there
were glimmers of hope for an ultimate end to this severe punishment.

Finally, the judge revealed his plan. He would have someone that did
not break that original law (nor any law for that matter), receive a
"once and for all punishment for that crime". The judge set this plan
into motion and people that saw and understood this act, responded
with gratitude.

The final act of the judges plan is yet to come. The one that took
the punishment for the crime will return and re-establish the
perfection that existed before the law was broken.

The question that everyone wants to know is - if Jesus did "reverse
the curse" why are things still crappy here on planet earth? The
basic answer is that the plan is still in motion, the plan is not
complete yet.

So we live in a screwed up world similar to what you described - but
that's not God's desire and he doesn't intend to let it go on this way
forever. In the meantime, we do what we can to try and right some of
the wrongs and we pray "Thy kingdom come..."

[4praise]

> S: A man picks up sticks on a Saturday. I get a group of my mates and
> stone him to death. Have I done anything wrong, according to the
> Bible?

Yes. See John 8:7 and Romans 3:23

On Jul 13, 8:45 pm, Stephen <stephen.p.cr...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Stephen]

On Jul 14, 3:43 pm, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> > S: A man picks up sticks on a Saturday. I get a group of my mates and
> > stone him to death. Have I done anything wrong, according to the
> > Bible?
>
> Yes.  See John 8:7  and Romans 3:23
>

S: Yes, most Christians would consider it immoral to obey the command
of God (allegedly) given in Num 15:32-36. Certainly Jesus and Paul
would advise against it (Jesus disregards the strict Sabbath keeping
laws when his disciple's eat the corn in the field, and Paul suggests
it's mere personal preference whether you consider a particular day
sacred or all days alike in Rom 14). I'm not sure how to reconcile
this with the OT law which states we ought to kill Sabbath-breakers.

My friend is getting married soon. If her husband suspects her to be
unchaste and my friend is unable to produce her "tokens of virginity",
am I morally obliged, according to the Old Testament, to stone her to
death in front of her parent's house? Another friend of mine is the
victim of a gang rape. Am I morally obliged, according to the Old
Testament, to stone her to death? Another friend of mine is a
homosexual. Am I morally obliged, according to the Old Testament, to
stone him to death?

It seems illogical to claim, simultaneously, that 1. All of God's
commands are good, that 2. God authored the commands given in the OT,
and that 3. The ideas attributed to Jesus in the New Testament are
good. I think Christians would find it easier if they defended, at
most, two of these claims at any one time...

[Drafterman]

It is interesting how you misrepresent your own Gospel.

On Jul 14, 2:38 am, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> Is that really your take on the Christian message?  If so then me and
> my fellow Christians have done a pretty poor job at proclaiming it.
> Could I take a quick stab at it now?
>
> The judge's first act was that he only made one law - that's it, just
> one.  But that one law was violated.  The judge had warned that
> violating that one law would have severe consequences, not only for
> the perpetrators but on their offspring.

That's not true at all. First, while the judge (God) did warn of
consequences, he lied about those consequences. Neither were those
consequences said to have any affect on their offspring. About the
tree of the knowledge of good and evil, God said:

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat
of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
Genesis 2:17.

God said that Adam and Eve would die the day they ate of the tree. God
said NOTHING about any inherent sinfulness that would somehow be part
of them and passed onto their children. It is amazing how Christians
have taken this, twisted it around and added to it. This single act
has been attributed to:

Changing Adam and Eve's DNA.
Creation of disease
Conversion of animals into carnivores

God did not warn Adam and Eve that any of that would happen, just that
they would die. It'd be like a judge telling you that the penalty for
an act is death, you're tricked into committing the act and then the
judge instead sentences you and your entire family, forever, to
slavery.

And I won't even go into the fact that punitive measures are a last
resort for law enforcement. By far the most efficient methods are
preventative ones. In this particular case, why did God put the tree
there to begin with?

> At the time that the law was
> broken, the judge himself already had a plan for getting things back
> to the state they were in before that law was broken.  (This is what
> you are describing - those consequences).

Actually, he had more than one plan, apparently. Which is interesting
since the first plan (Noah's ark) failed. Surely an omnipotent being
would have known that this would fail and he would have needed to
resort to "Plan B" (Jesus sacrifice).

Even then one wonders why God waited so long (at least 4,000 years) to
bring down his savior. If he had the plan in mind, why didn't he just
give us Jesus as soon as Adam and Eve "fell"? Why wait so long? Yeah,
it would have made for a shorter Bible but it would have saved us a
lot of trouble.

>
> Time passed and the consequences that were warned of came to pass.
> But even in the midst of the dire consequences of that crime, there
> were glimmers of hope for an ultimate end to this severe punishment.

What consequences did God warn Adam and even about, exactly?

>
> Finally, the judge revealed his plan.  He would have someone that did
> not break that original law (nor any law for that matter), receive a
> "once and for all punishment for that crime".  The judge set this plan
> into motion and people that saw and understood this act, responded
> with gratitude.

Why did he wait so long?

>
> The final act of the judges plan is yet to come.  The one that took
> the punishment for the crime will return and re-establish the
> perfection that existed before the law was broken.

Again, why wait? Why did this happen immediately after the previous
phase?

> > > did not owe because we owed a debt we could not pay".- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Brock Organ]

On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 10:52 PM, Dag Yo <sir_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> This is your chance Brock. Because these Oregonians are being nice
> enough and want people to have a chance for a fresh start i've decided
> to honor that instead of telling you to fuck off. So how about being
> reasonable for a change and chatting things out like a decent human
> being?

I believe my posts are generally quite polite, and my points are
communicated simply and clearly. :)

>> "God ... is alone in and unto himself all-sufficient, not standing in
>> need of any creatures which he hath made"[4]
>>
>> > only because God decided that's what he wanted.
>>
>> The Confession notes differently:
> Can you demonstrate that the confession is the correct interpretation
> of these things -- and if not, why should we care what it says.
>
> We're here to discuss the issues Brock, it's not a game of trivia
> about how The Confession phrases things.

6) The Westminster Confession of Faith contains useful summary

references to many of the propositional truths of the Bible

> If you believe someone is

> wrong then tell them why in your own words.

I simply cite my sources. Of course, the Confession does have a direct
simple clarity that makes it one of my favourite sources. The
Confession, and any other summary documents, are simply cited and
articulated to the degree that they can provide a means for
understanding the Bible.

But there are many other references as well, including:

* The Canons of the Council of Orange[1]
* The Augsburg Confession [2]
* The Thirty-Nine Articles[3]
* The Canons of Dordt[4]
* topical entries for important persons at wikipedia or other
encyclopedic works[5]

and others, if you are interested ... These topics are not new to 21st
century humankind, and to ignore the discussions that have featured so
prominently in the past is to overlook vital and important positions.
:)

Regards,

Brock

[1] http://www.reformed.org/documents/canons_of_orange.html
[2] http://www.reformed.org/documents/augsburg.html
[3] http://www.reformed.org/documents/articles_39_1572.html
[4] http://www.reformed.org/documents/canons_of_dordt.html
[5] for one example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protagoras

[DreadGeekGrrl]

On Jul 13, 11:38 pm, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> Is that really your take on the Christian message?  If so then me and
> my fellow Christians have done a pretty poor job at proclaiming it.
> Could I take a quick stab at it now?

Actually, I think that you and your co-religionists have done an
outstanding example of illustrating the Christian message. From
Thea's postings about humans coming from mud to Amy's making
statements about religions she knows *nothing* about to your continual
posting of other's words as your own thoughts on a given matter and
countless other examples, I believe that you and other Christians have
done, in point a fact, a superlative job of demonstrating Christian
thought. I cannot think of how you could do any better, in fact.

Whenever a Christian asks some question along the lines of "well, how
did the Earth form from nothing" they are illustrating Christian
thought about science.

Whenever a Christian asks some question along the lines of "well, if
there's no God why shouldn't people steal and murder wantonly since
there's no consequences' they are speaking *volumes* about Christian
morality.

Whenever a Christian states that it is just to punish all people for
the actions of one person, they are speaking loud and clear about the
Christian idea of justice.

The picture painted isn't pretty but it is entirely consonant with
Christian teachings and, in fact, I expect that most of the Christians
both here and on AvC are exemplary specimens of the religion in almost
every way.

Cheers
DGG

[rappoccio]

On Jul 13, 3:34 pm, amyluv <wright_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In another thread, it seems that one issue many have with The Bible
> and the religion it speaks on, is that it's full of blood and gore and
> hatred and punishment.
>
> I won't pretend to know everything there is to know about The Bible.
> I do have a few facts and such, however I'm not a bible scholar.  And
> even if I was, nobody can know everything about God.  We can only know
> what he left for us to know.
>
> Anyway, I wrestled with this question myself for quite some time, and
> here's where I landed:
>
> God's job can be most closely related on earth to a Judge in a
> courtroom.  So, if someone who has clearly broken the law comes before
> the judge, the case is made and won, and the Judge hands down a
> punishment.  Is he a good judge or a bad judge?
>
> If a judge refused to punish rapists, murderers, child molesters,
> thieves, etc., we'd call him a corrupt judge.

No judge I know of punishes people for thought crimes. For instance,
not believing in deities without any evidence that they exist.

>
> But what about smaller crimes?  Shouldn't the punishment be less
> severe?  Absolutely.  But there is always some sort of a price to pay
> when a wrong is done, even outside the courts.
>
> Lets say I'm caught doing something, and they take me to court.  I'm
> proven without a shadow of a doubt to be guilty.  The judge hands me a
> 500,000 fine, either I pay it or go to jail.  I don't have 500,000, so
> as their handcuffing me and getting ready to ship me off, somebody I
> don't even know stands up and says "I'll pay it for her".
>
> Another similar example:
>
> A woman comes before a judge for prostitution and drug trafficking
> with intent to sell (I don''t know what the exact terminology is, but
> you get my point).  The evidence against her is air-tight.  So, the
> judge gives her a 30,000 fine.  He then steps down from the judge's
> seat, takes off his judge's robe, and walks over the cashier and pays
> the 30,000 for her.  Why?  Because she was his daughter and he loved
> her.  He would have been a corrupt judge if he hadn't given out the
> fine, however he is also a loving dad so he paid the fine for her.
>
> God is our judge, and as so, if he IS right and good, then he has to
> allow punishments.  However, because he does also love us, he stepped
> out of heaven, became a man, and paid the price.  "He paid a debt he
> did not owe because we owed a debt we could not pay".

Great, then there's nothing to worry about one way or another. I have
seen no evidence that this has occurred, but if I see any I'll let you
know.

[rappoccio]

Exactly. I always tell people that "If God exists, I'd expect God to
NOT be a vindictive prick, so that rules out the Old Testament
entirely."

[Brock Organ]

On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 1:24 AM, Belly Bionic <belly...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 13, 7:44 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> You presume to be able to adequately evaluate God's actions and
>> motives. I suspect you seriously overestimate your abilities. Of
>> course, the Bible reveals His character and attributes and nature to
>> be quite different.
>
> As a reasonable, moral person, I'm perfectly capable of evaluating
> such obviously self-serving and evil behavior.

You'll understand that my position is that you are not competent to
evaluate God in such a manner.

> My opinion of his
> character and attributes is taken directly from the Bible, so the
> Bible does not, in fact, reveal his character to be different from my
> description of it.

Interesting claim. Your opinion and Job's opinion are quite
different. I believe Job's opinion is objectively correct:

"But how can a man be in the right before God?
"If one wished to dispute with Him,
He could not answer Him once in a thousand times.
"Wise in heart and mighty in strength,
Who has defied Him without harm?"[1]

> The fact that you choose to ignore the parts of

> the Bible which are inconvenient for you does nothing to change what
> the Bible actually says.

I think that is much easier to say than to demonstrate; but I'm
willing to talk with you more on this if you'd like to get more
specific. :)

>> Of course, if you presume that His punishment for sin is not fair,
>> I'll disagree, but there is something else about it that I agree is
>> not fair:
>>
>> God's plan for salvation.
>>
>> From my point of view, there's nothing fair about it.
>
> No, there isn't anything fair about it. God demanded that humans
> sacrifice his own earthly form to himself to save his creation from
> his own wrath. That's not even remotely fair, it's completely insane.

Its a wonderful thing. By paying a debt that I could not pay, Jesus
Christ has saved me from a horrible fate, and has provided me with a
blessed inheritance. As the Confession notes:

"The liberty which Christ hath purchased for believers under the
gospel consists in their freedom from the guilt of sin, the condemning
wrath of God, the curse of the moral law; and in their being delivered
from this present evil world, bondage to Satan, and dominion of sin,
from the evil of afflictions, the sting of death, the victory of the
grave, and everlasting damnation; as also in their free access to God,
and their yielding obedience unto him, not out of slavish fear, but a
childlike love, and a willing mind."[2]

>> Its a divine
>> transaction where Christ got to bear believer's sin and bore the
>> penalty in His person. Believers who accept the gospel, in turn,
>> receive credit for Christ's good standing and His righteousness. Its
>> a complete lopsided equation and all in the believer's favor. There
>> is no merit that I or any other sinner can bring to deserve such
>> wonderful treatment! It is complete largesse and sovereign
>> condescension on God's part, and I praise God for His wonderful plan!
>> And His wonderful love! :)
>
> Right. His wonderful love of sending anyone who failed to worship him
> to be horrifically tortured for eternity.

His provision for sin, by the gospel of Jesus Christ, provides a way
for any human to avoid such a fate. Its a wonderful love.

>> Of course, you are not careful in your analysis, and omit the fact
>> that all 3 persons involved in the garden exercised a moral agency
>> that God gave them. Satan is guilty of temptation to sin, not God.
>> Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, and not God. God is not guilty
>> of sin.
>
> God created sin. Sin only exists if God says it does.

But those are not equivalent statements. Though God has created all
things, yet God is not guilty of sin. 4praise really identified the
problem with such statements:

"If my simple comments provoked Observer to hurl foul insults at me did
I cause him to do it? You could say that that I did. But he made the
choice to do it. So it's true that I caused Observer to curse at me.
But it's also true that Observer chose to curse at me.

God placed Pharaoh between a rock and hard place - so you can
accurately say that God hardened Pharaoh's heart because he brought
about the circumstances but Pharaoh had a choice in the matter."[3]

Of course, the answer to the accusation "because God created all
things God is guilty of sin", is simply to note that sin is a
transgression of divine law. God has not transgressed divine law.
Moral agents that God created did sin, but that does not mean that God
sinned. As the Confession notes:

"God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is
neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined to

good or evil. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom and power
to will and to do that which is good and well-pleasing to God; but yet
mutably, so that he might fall from it."[4]

> God could have chosen not to put the tree in the
> middle of the garden.

But He did not sin in putting the tree in the middle of the garden.

> God could have given Adam ad Eve the knowledge
> of good and evil (in other words, the ability to understand right and
> wrong) right from the beginning.

God fully informed Adam and Eve on His requirements for obedience, as
Eve testified to in Genesis 3:

"From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the
fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said,
'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'"[5]

So God did give the knowledge necessary for obedience. :)

> God could have kept Satan out of the
> garden. God could have chosen not to create Satan in the first
> place.

But you've omitted the moral agency of the other participants:

* Satan might not have tempted Adam and Eve to do evil
* Eve might have refused to eat the fruit
* Adam might have refused to eat the fruit

Back to 4praise's excellent point:

"If my simple comments provoked Observer to hurl foul insults at me did
I cause him to do it? You could say that that I did. But he made the
choice to do it. So it's true that I caused Observer to curse at me.
But it's also true that Observer chose to curse at me."

Observer (in this example) as a free moral agent cannot maintain that
4praise "made" him curse. :)

> If the Bible is to be believed, then every single thing that
> happened in the garden happened because God set it up that way. If
> we're to believe the Bible, then God is absolutely culpable for every
> single thing that happened in the story.

But if you extend your proposition in such a consistent manner, then
God is the author of your post, and not you. (I, of course,
respectfully disagree, and I am the author of my post, not God, mine
would be a far better post if God were the author :) )

>> The Bible teaches that God does not tempt to sin. Of course, God does
>> require an obedience to His sovereign laws and decrees, and it is our
>> duty to be obedient. But for a human to disobey His law does not make
>> God guilty of sin. It makes the human guilty of sin.
>
> So what? The Bible teaches any number of things that are demonstrably
> false.

Again, I think that is much easier for you to say than to demonstrate;
but I'm willing to talk with you more on this if you'd like to get
more specific. :)

> Teaching that God does not tempt to sin even though God does
> just that over and over again in the same book that claims he does not
> is only one example of many of the Bible teaching obvious falsehoods.

Or, you're simply not able to distinguish God's actions from the
actions of creatures that have fallen into sin. I suspect that's a
better explanation that what you claim.

>> I don't believe you're correct to frame this in a context of God's
>> "needs".
>
> As we've seen, you believe lots of things that are false, and
> disbelieve lots of things that are true.

Again, I think that is much easier for you to say than to demonstrate;
but I'm willing to talk with you more on this if you'd like to get
more specific. :)

>> Or alternatively, He could have justly made the decision to not
>> forgive anyone.
>
> Precisely. And that would be just another example of the evil of your
> deity.

No, its just another example of the sovereignty of God. He makes
choices, and those choices are consistent with His wonderful high and
holy character. As humans are affected by sin, human choices are not
nearly as good, and humans do not have access to all the knowledge
that He has, so I don't believe that humans have an objective moral
basis with which to accuse God of evil. :)

>> He is exquisitely Holy, high and puissant.
>
> Why? Can you explain your opinion on this without resorting to
> endlessly cutting and pasting the words of others? Are you capable of
> articulating a single thought that hasn't been spoon fed to you?

You make it sound bad. Of course, I'm happy to cite my sources, and
note that my sources are meant to communicate the truths of the Bible
in a simple direct and clear manner. :)

Regards,

Brock

[1] http://nasb.scripturetext.com/job/9.htm v 1-4

[2] http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html Ch 20 S 1
[3] http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/f6a5c44c292c5fa3
[4] http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.html Ch 20 S 1
[5] http://nasb.scripturetext.com/genesis/3.htm v 2

[thea]

On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 7:27 PM, The Belly Bionic <belly...@gmail.com> wrote:

Everything following should be assumed to contain the phrases "If the
Bible were true" and "If the Christian god existed" where appropriate:
Adam and Eve represented humanity only because God decided they did.
They needed to be tempted only because God wanted it that way.  They
needed to be cast out of the garden for it only because God made the
decision to cast them out, even though he's the one who set them up in
the first place.  All of humanity was punished for their "sin" only
because God wanted to punish all of humanity.  Jesus needed to be born
and then sacrificed only because God decided that's what he wanted.  At
any point, God could have just made the decision to forgive everyone, no
strings attached.  If he was unable to make that decision, then he's not
much of a god.  If any of us need forgiveness, it's only because God
made the decision for it to be that way.  Which is why the Christian god
is, at best, a psychopath and Christianity is a morally bankrupt system
of worship.

Go to a King James Bible and read Ezekiel 28:11-17 and you will be reading about the King of Tyre, and Satan is the real king of Tyre.  It is an interesting story in that sin is about "Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty;"

And then in Isaiah 14:12-17, we find the overthrow of Lucifier (Satan) because of pride and rebellion.

Therefore because Satan sinned, Adam when he sinned, sinned with this same willfulness that said, *be like the most high God*.  So, mankind became *little gods.*

My husband likes to ask pastor's a question:  "If Satan got kicked out of heaven in the eons of time past, why won't we be kicked out in the eons of time to come?" 

The first chapter of Ephesians tells us why we won't get kicked out.  Because we don't get to heaven because of who we are, we get to heaven because of the *redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace.*

I will accept the offer from God to believe, as Romans 10:9 says, "That God raised Jesus from the dead.* (10:11) *Whosoever believeth on Him (Jesus) shall not be ashamed.*

That is my confession of faith – Thank You, Jesus, for dying in my place on Calvary!!

thea

[rappoccio]

Exactly. It's fairly disgusting.

[DreadGeekGrrl]

Drafter:

Spot on! That's *precisely* the problem. Within Christian morality,
all that matters...ALL that matters, is if you are 'saved'. If you
happen to be a decent human being either on account of that or for
other reasons, no one has any objections to that per se but it's
*entirely* beside the point. The guy who gunned down an abortion
doctor, in Christian morality, is going to heaven because he is
saved. The Doctor without Borders volunteer who happens to be Hindu
isn't. Why? Because he doesn't believe in the right god. Yet THIS
idea is held up as the pinnacle of human morality by its adherents.

Cheers
DGG

[Drafterman]

That such drastic consequences could be based upon such a trivial
belief, and that people BELIEVE this is beyond my ability to
comprehend.

> > Judge: Innocent. Court dismissed.- Hide quoted text -

[4praise]

It's pretty simple really. You would not try to fill out your 2007
U.S. tax returns using the tax code and forms from 1962 would you?

[4praise]

> God said that Adam and Eve would die the day they ate of the tree. God
> said NOTHING about any inherent sinfulness that would somehow be part
> of them and passed onto their children.

The key is in understanding that God spoke of a spiritual "death"
which included all those things. Do you really think that the writer
of Genesis didn't see that? If this were just a made up story, then
the writer of Genesis would have phrased it differently.

> Actually, he had more than one plan, apparently. Which is interesting
> since the first plan (Noah's ark) failed. Surely an omnipotent being
> would have known that this would fail and he would have needed to
> resort to "Plan B" (Jesus sacrifice).
>

Noah's ark was not plan A. It was foreshadowing.

> Why did he wait so long?

Good question but in the context of long time scales, 6,000 years is
pretty short.

[DreadGeekGrrl]

4praise:

but why is it that when it's convenient (say in the case of
homosexuality) for the rules to apply they apply but when it's not
convenient (say in the case of killing your child because he was
defiant) they don't. It would be a wholly dishonest or foolish person
to say that Leviticus (which last I checked was in the Hebrew
scriptures) isn't used as the primary text to justify condemning
homosexuality. So one cannot say "well, we never use that" and, in
fact, when challenged about that the typical response is some
variation on the frame "the law of God is the same, yesterday, today
and tomorrow". Now, if we grant this to be the honest position of the
person invoking Leviticus to argue that homosexuals should not be
allowed to marry, for instance, then it would seem to stand to reason
that the passages calling for the death penalty for breaking the
Sabbath are *also* part of the law of God which is the same,
yesterday, today and tomorrow. Except, of course, this does not
appear to be the case.

You are doing it in this very thread. The law of God is to be read
and learned from the Bible and adhered to, except where to do so would
offend modern sensibilities in which case it shouldn't be and we
should read those passages as having been superseded by Jesus. Do you
see the blatant inconsistency? I would hope so but I suspect that
hope is ill-founded.

Cheers
DGG

[Drafterman]

On Jul 14, 3:55 pm, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> > God said that Adam and Eve would die the day they ate of the tree. God
> > said NOTHING about any inherent sinfulness that would somehow be part
> > of them and passed onto their children.
>
> The key is in understanding that God spoke of a spiritual "death"
> which included all those things.  Do you really think that the writer
> of Genesis didn't see that?  If this were just a made up story, then
> the writer of Genesis would have phrased it differently.

Since I'm not bound by accepting the Bible as true, I don't feel it
necessary to invent convoluted was to pass it off as true. As it is
there is no indication that the "death" spoken of is "spiritual" in
nature, as it has no qualifier. In this case the possible options are:

The death mentioned is spiritual death and there is no contradiction.
The death mentiond is physical death and this is a mistake.

In your position, you cannot tolerate mistakes in the Bible, so you
are forced to assume the first is the correct choice, and will come up
with any reasoning to validate it. Since I am not so inclined, and
since there is no indication of one meaning over the other, then I
fall back on the default, which would be a literal translation:
physical death. It does not bother me that this may be an oversight or
mistake on part of the author(s) whoever they may be.

At the very least you have to admit that it is confusing since the
same word is used to illustrate what you claim is Adam's spiritual
death (as a result of eating from the tree) and when Adam actually,
physically, dies (at nine-hundred odd years old). You would figure
that if the author was going to make a distinction between the
difference kinds of dying then they would have been more explicit in
doing so, rather than using the same word for both cases.

This is hardly the point, however, as death, spiritual or not, was not
the only consequences of eating from the tree. They were kicked out of
Eden, set to suffer in the world, and would pass on sin to their
offspring. None of this was explained to them beforehand, as was
previously claimed.

>
> > Actually, he had more than one plan, apparently. Which is interesting
> > since the first plan (Noah's ark) failed. Surely an omnipotent being
> > would have known that this would fail and he would have needed to
> > resort to "Plan B" (Jesus sacrifice).
>
> Noah's ark was not plan A.  It was foreshadowing.

I'm thinking you don't know what foreshadowing means, are you saying
that Noah's Ark did not happen, but will in the future? That does not
seem to be what is indicated in the Bible. As written in the Bible it
is (an ultimately failed) attempt by God to purge the land of
wickedness. That an omnipotent and omniscience God would need more
than one attempt, fail at any of them, or use such crude methods is
not logically consistent.

>
> > Why did he wait so long?
>
> Good question but in the context of long time scales, 6,000 years is
> pretty short.

Yes, yes, time scales are relative, but that doesn't answer why God
would have waited at all. Why wasn't Jesus born the day after Adam and
Eve were kicked out?

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[Medusa]

On Jul 13, 6:55 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 6:32 PM, Belly Bionic <bellybio...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > So you would say punishing the innocent for crimes they had no part in
> > is "fair?"
>
> I would simply note that your characterization is incomplete. :)
>
> Adam and Eve represented the human race in God's covenant of works;
> when they rebelled, all of humankind was represented in that failure.

So we all born guilty of a crime that was committed before we were
conceived.

This ridiculous belief is one of the reasons I became an atheist.

This is not fair justice of any kind. If a parent is convicted of a
crime in any just court on the planet, the children are not punished
as well.

The idea of a god who would judge me guilty the moment I was born is
not my idea of a fair, just god.

Medusa

[Dag Yo]

I asked you a question Brock. Here it is again in case you missed it
the first time due to my shitty punctuation:

Can you demonstrate that the confession is the correct interpretation

of these things -- and if not, why should we care what it says?

On Jul 14, 7:41 am, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Dag Yo]

Sorry Belly, for a moment there I thought you had a made a brilliant
point, but now that I think about it i'm gonna have to side with with
Brock on this one.

I also blame Rube Goldberg machines themselves for everything that
happens once they've been started.

On Jul 14, 9:56 am, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> [1]http://nasb.scripturetext.com/job/9.htmv 1-4
> [2]http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.htmlCh 20 S 1
> [3]http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/f6a5c44c29...
> [4]http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.htmlCh 20 S 1
> [5]http://nasb.scripturetext.com/genesis/3.htmv 2

[DreadGeekGrrl]

Brock:

The question isn't whether you cite your sources, it's whether or not
you're willing to put your thoughts together in your OWN words. Some
of us work rather hard at our posts. We write what WE think on the
matter, not what someone with a convenient website thinks on the
matter. Sometimes that requires going and doing some reading to fact
check some thing or another. We do it because we think the issue is
worth it and, what's more, the others reading this group are worth
it. Now, you may not think us worth the effort (and I would not be at
all surprised if you did) but it's rather cheesy, cheeky and insulting
for you to be asked a question and you to respond--time and time
again--not with your words but with someone else's words.

Cheers
DGG

On Jul 14, 9:56 am, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> [1]http://nasb.scripturetext.com/job/9.htmv 1-4
> [2]http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.htmlCh 20 S 1
> [3]http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/f6a5c44c29...
> [4]http://www.reformed.org/documents/westminster_conf_of_faith.htmlCh 20 S 1
> [5]http://nasb.scripturetext.com/genesis/3.htmv 2

[Brock Organ]

On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Medusa <Medus...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 13, 6:55 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 6:32 PM, Belly Bionic <bellybio...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > So you would say punishing the innocent for crimes they had no part in
>> > is "fair?"
>>
>> I would simply note that your characterization is incomplete. :)
>>
>> Adam and Eve represented the human race in God's covenant of works;
>> when they rebelled, all of humankind was represented in that failure.
>
> So we all born guilty of a crime that was committed before we were
> conceived.
>
> This ridiculous belief is one of the reasons I became an atheist.

Well, you omit the other side of the analysis, which is simply this:

Humankind died in Adam,
but can live in Christ! :)

The representation that brought us separation from God in Adam, brings
believers a full and blessed and eternal inheritance in Christ! :)

What a wonderful plan! :)

> This is not fair justice of any kind. If a parent is convicted of a
> crime in any just court on the planet, the children are not punished
> as well.
>
> The idea of a god who would judge me guilty the moment I was born is
> not my idea of a fair, just god.

But the point is that the objective qualities for "fair" and "justice"
are not limited by what you personally find appealing, or put another
way:

Humankind is not the measure of all things[1].

Regards,

Brock

[1] As a response to Protogoras famous quote: "Man is the measure of
all things: of things which are, that they are, and of things which
are not, that they are not" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protagoras

[Brock]

On Jul 14, 4:32 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I asked you a question Brock.  Here it is again in case you missed it
> the first time due to my shitty punctuation:
>
> Can you demonstrate that the confession is the correct interpretation
> of these things -- and if not, why should we care what it says?

6) The Westminster Confession of Faith contains useful summary
references to many of the propositional truths of the Bible

Of course, the Confession does have a direct simple clarity that makes

it one of my favourite sources. The Confession, and other summary

documents, are simply cited and articulated to the degree that they
can provide a means for understanding the Bible.

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 4:57 PM, DreadGeekGrrl <drea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Brock:
>
> The question isn't whether you cite your sources, it's whether or not
> you're willing to put your thoughts together in your OWN words.

I evaluate your distinction as artificial and capricious. My intent
is to communicate my positions clearly, simply and directly. Of
course, these issues have been debated for literally hundreds and
hundreds of years, and I'm glad to reference them in making my points.

I believe the references help improve communications in several ways:

* in citing an important historical source, the context and
specificity of terms used can be much clearer
* the careful language behind the position in many cases reflects
hours of thought based on years of study by the document authors
* the vetting process, analysis and impact of such reference documents
and the traditions they inspire enrich the discussion

Regards,

Brock

[DreadGeekGrrl]

Brock;

I would disagree but that's okay. I guess I should just start copying
and pasting from various journals I have access to whenever someone
brings up Creationism.

Cheers
DGG

On Jul 14, 2:15 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

[The Belly Bionic]

Rube Goldberg machines are neither intelligent nor all-powerful.

If I build a car and rig it up with a bomb that my or may not explode at
any given time, and it does in fact blow up and kill some people, do I
get to claim that I'm not responsible for it because I wasn't driving
the car at the time?

[Dag Yo]

> If I build a car and rig it up with a bomb that my or may not explode at
> any given time, and it does in fact blow up and kill some people, do I
> get to claim that I'm not responsible for it because I wasn't driving
> the car at the time?

Definitely not. And neither are the people driving at the time, only
the car/bomb is responsible for it's actions -- the fact that you
built the thing and set it up to explode doesn't make you responsible
in the least.

And btw, thats not the best analogy either, since unlike God knowing
before hand that people were going to sin; you didn't know for certain
that the bomb was going to go off.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Dag Yo]

> > Can you demonstrate that the confession is the correct interpretation
> > of these things -- and if not, why should we care what it says?
>
> 6) The Westminster Confession of Faith contains useful summary
> references to many of the propositional truths of the Bible

I didn't ask you whether or not "the Westminster Confession of Faith

contains useful summary references to many of the propositional truths

of the Bible", I asked you if you could demonstrate that the
confession is the correct interpretation of these things (and if
you're unable to do so, there is a follow up question as to why any of
us (including yourself) should care about what it says?).

Now how about giving me an answer to my question?

[Medusa]

Brock Organ wrote:

> > This ridiculous belief is one of the reasons I became an atheist.
>
> Well, you omit the other side of the analysis, which is simply this:
>
> Humankind died in Adam,
> but can live in Christ! :)
>
> The representation that brought us separation from God in Adam, brings
> believers a full and blessed and eternal inheritance in Christ! :)

It still is a raw deal. But not for me, because I don't buy the myth
of an all-loving god who will throw me into a lake of fire forever.

> What a wonderful plan! :)
>
> > This is not fair justice of any kind. If a parent is convicted of a
> > crime in any just court on the planet, the children are not punished
> > as well.
> >
> > The idea of a god who would judge me guilty the moment I was born is
> > not my idea of a fair, just god.
>
> But the point is that the objective qualities for "fair" and "justice"
> are not limited by what you personally find appealing, or put another
> way:
>
> Humankind is not the measure of all things[1].

I believe it is.

Medusa

[Stephen]

On Jul 15, 4:48 am, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> It's pretty simple really.  You  would not try to fill out your 2007
> U.S. tax returns using the tax code and forms from 1962 would you?
>

S: I agree that the Old Testament is obsolete, and I even have a proof
text!

Heb 7:18-19 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and
useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is
introduced, by which we draw near to God. Heb 8:6-7 But the ministry
Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which
he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better
promises. For if there had been nothing wrong with that first
covenant, no place would have been sought for another. Heb 8:13 By
calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and
what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

Many Christians do not seem to realise just how "weak", "useless",
inferior, "wrong", "obsolete" and "aging" their Bibles are.

To be more constructive, one could suggest that Jesus himself is the
word of God for Christians, not the Bible.

[rappoccio]

On Jul 14, 4:31 pm, DreadGeekGrrl <dreadg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Brock;
>
> I would disagree but that's okay.

DGG, meet Brock Wall. It's about as fun to talk to him as it is to
slam your head against a Brick Wall. And as productive.

[rappoccio]

On Jul 14, 5:37 pm, Dag Yo <sir_ro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Can you demonstrate that the confession is the correct interpretation
> > > of these things -- and if not, why should we care what it says?
>
> > 6) The Westminster Confession of Faith contains useful summary
> > references to many of the propositional truths of the Bible
>
> I didn't ask you whether or not "the Westminster Confession of Faith
> contains useful summary references to many of the propositional truths
> of the Bible", I asked you if you could demonstrate that the
> confession is the correct interpretation of these things (and if
> you're unable to do so, there is a follow up question as to why any of
> us (including yourself) should care about what it says?).
>
> Now how about giving me an answer to my question?

It's time to extend the "No Reply to Brock Wall Organization" to this
group as well.

[Brock Organ]

On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:37 PM, Dag Yo <sir_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> > Can you demonstrate that the confession is the correct interpretation
>> > of these things -- and if not, why should we care what it says?
>>
>> 6) The Westminster Confession of Faith contains useful summary
>> references to many of the propositional truths of the Bible
> I didn't ask you whether or not "the Westminster Confession of Faith
> contains useful summary references to many of the propositional truths
> of the Bible", I asked you if you could demonstrate that the
> confession is the correct interpretation of these things (and if
> you're unable to do so, there is a follow up question as to why any of
> us (including yourself) should care about what it says?).
>
> Now how about giving me an answer to my question?

You make it too easy:

[Belly Bionic]

On Jul 14, 9:56 am, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You make it sound bad.  Of course, I'm happy to cite my sources, and
> note that my sources are meant to communicate the truths of the Bible
> in a simple direct and clear manner. :)

Thank you for as direct an answer as anyone is likely to ever get from
you. The purpose of this community is to debate with other people.
If you're unwilling to put your own ideas up for debate, and instead
insist on simply cutting and pasting the same old passages from the
work of others over and over again, then there is no point in engaging
with you further.

[DreadGeekGrrl]

Rap:

That's okay, if the best that Brock and do is respond via copy and
paste, then I can just as easily debate someone else who *does* have
something to say in their own words instead of merely taking what
others have thought about a subject.

Cheers
DGG

[Dag Yo]

That didn't address the question at all.

On Jul 14, 7:07 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Brock Organ]

On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:15 PM, Belly Bionic <belly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Jul 14, 9:56 am, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> You make it sound bad. Of course, I'm happy to cite my sources, and
>> note that my sources are meant to communicate the truths of the Bible
>> in a simple direct and clear manner. :)
>
> Thank you for as direct an answer as anyone is likely to ever get from
> you.

You're welcome. I think they are excellent answers, communicated
simply, directly and profoundly.

> The purpose of this community is to debate with other people.
> If you're unwilling to put your own ideas up for debate, and instead
> insist on simply cutting and pasting the same old passages from the
> work of others over and over again, then there is no point in engaging
> with you further.

I think the kind of thinking that separates "my words" versus
"referencing established theological and philosophical works" creates
an arbitrary and false dichotomy. But I was happy to have your
participation.

Regards,

Brock

[Brock]

On Jul 14, 7:57 pm, Medusa <Medusa4...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Brock Organ wrote:
> > > This ridiculous belief is one of the reasons I became an atheist.
>
> > Well, you omit the other side of the analysis, which is simply this:
>
> > Humankind died in Adam,
> > but can live in Christ! :)
>
> > The representation that brought us separation from God in Adam, brings
> > believers a full and blessed and eternal inheritance in Christ! :)
>
> It still is a raw deal.

Not for believers, because the promise of deliverance from sin and a
blessed and eternal life is the most wonderful news one can think to
share. And of course, for non-believers, even God's common grace is a
gift. What a wonderful God. Truly He treats all humans better than is
deserved by considerations of justice.

> > > The idea of a god who would judge me guilty the moment I was born is
> > > not my idea of a fair, just god.
>
> > But the point is that the objective qualities for "fair" and "justice"
> > are not limited by what you personally find appealing, or put another
> > way:
>
> > Humankind is not the measure of all things[1].
>
> I believe it is.

Many others articulate a position similar to yours, including
Aristotle, Hume, Berkeley, and contemporary figures like Philip K.
Dick.

I'm going to go with the Bible on this one, though. :)

Regards,

Brock

[Brock Organ]

On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 11:30 PM, Dag Yo <sir_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> That didn't address the question at all.

Its a direct answer. I suspect you just don't like the answer. :)

You ask:

> > why should we care what it says?

and I answer:

"The Confession, and other summary documents, are simply cited and
articulated to the degree that they can provide a means for
understanding the Bible."

Pretty good answer. :)

Regards,

Brock

[Dag Yo]

> > That didn't address the question at all.
>
> Its a direct answer. I suspect you just don't like the answer. :)
>
> You ask:
> > > why should we care what it says?
> and I answer:
>
> "The Confession, and other summary documents, are simply cited and
> articulated to the degree that they can provide a means for
> understanding the Bible."
>
> Pretty good answer. :)

Actually you snipped the hell of of my question because you're a
dishonest person.

And in case anyone missed it and would like to see what was actually
asked before he snipped away my question:

"I asked you if you could demonstrate that the confession is the
correct interpretation of these things (and if you're unable to do so,
there is a follow up question as to why any of us (including yourself)

should care about what it says?)?"

On Jul 14, 8:49 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

[4praise]

Let's compare those two things:

1. Homosexual activity
OT - punishment is death
NT - "internal" punishment (Romans 1:27)

2. Defiant behavior by a child
OT - punishment is death
NT - punishment is that things won't go well for you and your life
span may be shortened (Ephesians 6:3)

In the OT a judicial punishment is carried out under a theocratic
rule. In the NT man is relieved from having to mete out the
punishment for these.

The same is true with most of the laws - we don't stone adulterers -
adultery is still bad and those that engage in it do experience
consequences but we have been relieved from being responsible for
their punishment. I for one am grateful - thank you Jesus.

[4praise]

The bible requires understanding. Just think about your point of view
here...

The writer of Genesis is so dumb that he writes down that God said
they would die and then just a few pages later he writes about them
eating and they don't die. How can you imagine that the writer didn't
understand that? How can you imagine that every reader for the last
2500+ years didn't see that?

The writer and virtually everyone that has ever read this story knows
that the "death" spoken of was a spiritual death that also ultimately
led to physical death.

> This is hardly the point, however, as death, spiritual or not, was not
> the only consequences of eating from the tree. They were kicked out of
> Eden, set to suffer in the world, and would pass on sin to their
> offspring. None of this was explained to them beforehand, as was
> previously claimed.

Spiritual death included all of that. It may or may not have been
explained, every communication between Adam and God is not recorded
but it is not required that it be explained - how could you explain it
to a man that had known nothing but paradise? The word "death" is
perhaps the most succinct and best word to describe it.

The flood was not God's attempt to bring man back to the garden, it
was his judgment against evil. The story of Noah foreshadows God's
ability and desire to redeem what he can from the destruction.

> Why wasn't Jesus born the day after Adam and Eve were kicked out?

Why can't you grow a watermelon in 5 minutes? The human race needed
to become "ripe".

> ...
>
> read more »

[4praise]

> To be more constructive, one could suggest that Jesus himself is the
> word of God for Christians, not the Bible.

Yer preaching to the choir now brother :-)

John 1:1 says that Jesus is the Word. There is a good deal of what I
call "bible-olatry" in the church.

However, I will disagree on one point - the bible is far from
useless. It contains records of God's revelations and is useful in
many ways. The "Law" is "useless" when it comes to salvation but as 2
Timothy 3:16,17 says:

Every writing inspired by God is profitable for teaching, for reproof,
for correction, and for instruction in righteousness, that the man of
God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

[4praise]

I don't understand the objection.

Brock simply answers with quotes from a source that expresses his
point of view.

Why does that bother people? Your free to say "well, the WMC is wrong
because...."

> > Can you demonstrate that the confession is the correct interpretation
> > of these things -- and if not, why should we care what it says?

You don't have to care what it says any more than you need to care
what anyone here says. I don't believe that Brock is using the WMC as
an appeal to authority - I think he just uses it because as he often
says "he likes the way the confession puts it".

[Stephen]

On Jul 15, 3:17 pm, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> > To be more constructive, one could suggest that Jesus himself is the
> > word of God for Christians, not the Bible.
>
> Yer preaching to the choir now brother :-)
>
> John 1:1 says that Jesus is the Word.  There is a good deal of what I
> call "bible-olatry" in the church.

S: John 1 does identify Jesus as the Logos. I think most people would
prefer Christians to ask "What Would Jesus Do?" instead of obeying the
immoral commandments attributed to God. Jesus' moral basis is
incompatible with the Hebrew scriptures. It's takes little imagination
to see why the "religious right" of his day crucified him. I can
almost accept that today's religious right would have done the same
thing.

>
> However, I will disagree on one point - the bible is far from
> useless.  It contains records of God's revelations and is useful in
> many ways.  The "Law" is "useless" when it comes to salvation but as 2
> Timothy 3:16,17 says:
>
> Every writing inspired by God is profitable for teaching, for reproof,
> for correction, and for instruction in righteousness, that the man of
> God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

S: I find it interesting that the translation of 2 Tim 3:16 you've
used doesn't translate the Greek "graphe" to solely incorporate the
Hebrew (or Christian) scriptures. One could choose to translate the
verse as "all literature is divinely breathed in and useful for
teaching, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness". I like
the idea that all religions have discovered something pragmatically
useful. Also, one can (with some theological gymnastics!) even believe
2 Tim 3:16 without thinking it's kosher to stone your disobedient
children to death.

[Drafterman]

On Jul 14, 11:36 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:15 PM, Belly Bionic <bellybio...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 14, 9:56 am, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> You make it sound bad.  Of course, I'm happy to cite my sources, and
> >> note that my sources are meant to communicate the truths of the Bible
> >> in a simple direct and clear manner. :)
>
> > Thank you for as direct an answer as anyone is likely to ever get from
> > you.
>
> You're welcome.  I think they are excellent answers, communicated
> simply, directly and profoundly.

And this is why Brock accurately earns the title "vainglorious"

[Drafterman]

On Jul 15, 2:06 am, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> The bible requires understanding.  Just think about your point of view
> here...
>
> The writer of Genesis is so dumb that he writes down that God said
> they would die and then just a few pages later he writes about them
> eating and they don't die.  How can you imagine that the writer didn't
> understand that?

I don't imagine them to be dumb, I just imagine a mistake being made.
Or perhaps it was his intention to portray God as a liar. It's
irrelevant, anyway. The original point made was that God warned Adam
and Eve of the consequences of their actions, and this is clearly
false. Even if the only consequence was spiritual death (which it
wasn't) how were Adam and Eve supposed to know what God meant,
exactly?

If I tell you that "If you do X, you will die" you are going to think
I mean physical death. Unless there is some qualifier, that is what
EVERYONE will think. Now, Adam and Eve did not have the benefit of
knowing exactly what would happen when they ate from the tree (since
God didn't warn them of the consequences) so they had no reason to
believe it meant spiritual death. So, even if God *meant* spiritual
death, that was not conveyed to Adam and Eve, ergo God did not warn
them of this consequence. At least not in a manner of any
significance.

> How can you imagine that every reader for the last
> 2500+ years didn't see that?

The arguments levied against the Bible have existed for almost as long
as the Bible have. It is just convenient for you to ignore them.

>
> The writer and virtually everyone that has ever read this story knows
> that the "death" spoken of was a spiritual death that also ultimately
> led to physical death.

Not true at all. People not bound by accepting the Bible as true do
not need to insert such convoluted reasoning. No where else is "death"
taken to mean spiritual by default, without any additional details or
qualifiers. Do you think the death penalty means the electric chair
only electrocutes your spirit, and leaves your body unscathed? Can you
point to any example, literary or otherwise where the word death,
without any extra details or qualifiers, defaults to "spiritual
death"?

>
> > This is hardly the point, however, as death, spiritual or not, was not
> > the only consequences of eating from the tree. They were kicked out of
> > Eden, set to suffer in the world, and would pass on sin to their
> > offspring. None of this was explained to them beforehand, as was
> > previously claimed.
>
> Spiritual death included all of that.  It may or may not have been
> explained, every communication between Adam and God is not recorded
> but it is not required that it be explained - how could you explain it
> to a man that had known nothing but paradise?  The word "death" is
> perhaps the most succinct and best word to describe it.

Are you serious? You can't argue that God explained the consequences
to Adam and Eve unless Adam and Eve understood what God meant. If I
give you a warning in a language you don't understand, does that mean
I can consider you warned? No! If there is no transferrence of
knowledge (which there wasn't) then you cannot say that Adam and Eve
were warned of the consequences of their actions.

Again, you are adding another layer of convolution: you are assuming
more communication between Adam and Eve than is depicted in the Bible.
This is another point I'm trying to make. You have to assume, without
reason, extra stuff not included in the BIble in order to maintain its
truth.

>
> The flood was not God's attempt to bring man back to the garden, it
> was his judgment against evil.  The story of Noah foreshadows God's
> ability and desire to redeem what he can from the destruction.

God wasn't judging anyone, he was despairing. (Genesis 6:6) This was
his attempt at hitting the reset button because his Sims game got a
little out of control. The only thing that stayed his hand was he had
a Sim that he liked. So he just killed everyone else, instead. If
God's ultimate intention was to *SAVE* everyone with Jesus, why did he
do the flood thing to begin with?

>
> > Why wasn't Jesus born the day after Adam and Eve were kicked out?
>
> Why can't you grow a watermelon in 5 minutes?  The human race needed
> to become "ripe".

Are you serious? You are telling me that a God that can make the
entire universe in 6 days can't make a watermelon in 5 minutes? Why,
exactly, did the human race need to become "ripe" in order to be
saved? More convolution.

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Brock Organ]

On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 12:19 AM, Dag Yo <sir_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> > That didn't address the question at all.
>>
>> Its a direct answer. I suspect you just don't like the answer. :)
>>
>> You ask:
>> > > why should we care what it says?
>> and I answer:
>>
>> "The Confession, and other summary documents, are simply cited and
>> articulated to the degree that they can provide a means for
>> understanding the Bible."
>>
>> Pretty good answer. :)

> Actually you snipped the hell of of my question because you're a
> dishonest person.

Nope, I simply noted that I answered your question. :)

Regards,

Brock

[4praise]

In context it is most likely that 1 Tim 3:16 refers to the OT because
3:15 talks about the "holy scriptures" that Timothy had learned as a
child. However, I think that it is accurate to expand it by using
that translation (which is the alt translation in the World English
bible) to all "scripture" because without that, even the NT would not
be included as valuable and without the NT we wouldn't have the
balance that keeps people from hearkening back to the theocracy of the
OT for a practical guide to government. Instead we have scriptures
like Rom 13 where Paul encourages submission to governments that are
not theocratic by arguing that all authority comes from God.

[4praise]

I am not saying that God couldn't make a watermelon in 5 minutes, I am
using that as an illustration.

>Why,exactly, did the human race need to become "ripe" in order to be saved?

I am unqualified to answer completely as I do not have the mind of
God. I can only guess that something akin to the growing of a
watermelon is at play. It takes time to accomplish some things.

One explanation might just be the sheer numbers and God's desires.
For example if God's desire is/was to have 10 billion children - if he
just created them and there was no time, no generations, ho history
then those kids would all pretty much be the same. If however,
thousands of years passed as those kids lived out their lives in a
"simulation", those kids would all have unique characteristics and
would develop interesting traits along the way.

> ...
>
> read more »

[DreadGeekGrrl]

4praise:

Again, I would contend that you are putting your *modern*
interpretation on those words because the idea of putting homosexuals
to death is, thankfully, distasteful to our modern sensibilities.

Oh and in keeping with the Brock aesthetic of posting:

Civil officials have a God ordained duty to execute sodomites.

The word of God commands, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth
with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall
surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" (Lev.20:13).

Have we not been taught that homosexuality is an abomination (Lev.
18:22). And those who engage in homosexuality are so vile that their
very presence defiles the land and its inhabitants (Lev.18:25-28).

This sodomite defilement brings eternal damnation upon all who approve
of homosexuality (Rom.1:32, 13:2) and brings God's righteous judgment
of punishment and death on the society as a whole (Gen.19:24-25, II
Pet.2:6).

The Magistrate, in his proper role, "beareth not the sword in vain:
for he is the minister of God, a revenger to [execute] wrath upon him
that doeth evil" (Rom.13:4).

Since Magistrates have such a sure Biblical mandate to protect the
innocent people in society by using the sword to execute sodomites (he
that doeth evil), why then, are Christians encouraging civil officials
to ignore the commandments of God concerning homosexuality?

Where does it say in the Bible, "If a man lie with mankind as he lieth
with a woman, you shall pass a Marriage Protection Amendment"?

Such legislative efforts make the commandments of God of no effect,
and Christian men involved in these efforts should be ashamed of
themselves for engaging in pharisaical deceit against the ordinance of
God in front of His people (Matt.5:17-20, 15:7-9; Rom.13:2).

Back in 2003, when the Supreme Court issued an opinion against Texas
sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas, Republicans started pushing the idea
of a "Marriage Protection Amendment" as a solution to the "gay
problem." As we now know the amendment idea is not a solution but a
red herring used by crafty politicians to distract Christians away
from obedience to the commandments of God concerning homosexuality. It
is a political trick used to lure the Church into a humiliating
situation of begging the State to "defend marriage" while allowing
civil officials to circumvent their God ordained duty to administer
Justice upon sodomites!

When the Supreme Court rendered its Lawrence opinion, every U.S.
Congressmen from the state of Texas should have issued an Indictment
of Impeachment to have the Supreme Court Justices, responsible for
such an abomination, to be kicked off the bench for sexual deviant
behavior under Article III Section. I of the Constitution. Across the
nation reprobate federal judges sit on the bench at the behest of our
U.S. Congressmen and U.S. Senators.

America is a cursed nation (John.7:49) and "defending marriage" does
nothing to cut off the curse. The marriage amendment does nothing to
protect the people of the United States from the wrath to come-because
of homosexuality. The word of God commands that sodomites are to be
executed, and God gives our civil officials the sword to do the job.
Until our civil officials turn from their wicked way by administering
Justice, we can only be judged with the most depraved pagan nations in
history:

"Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like
manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange
flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of
eternal fire" (Jude 1:7).

If you hate your children's guts, then do not teach them how to
administer Justice in the land (Eph.6:4). Just sit back and let the
lawless be damned (Matt.7:21-23).

http://www.covenantnews.com/rudd060607.htm

Now, why is he wrong and you are right? He has scripture to back up
his points. Why is your interpretation the correct one?


cheers
DGG

[Drafterman]

On Jul 15, 11:29 am, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> I am not saying that God couldn't make a watermelon in 5 minutes, I am
> using that as an illustration.

Of what? Since we are talking about God's actions, then I fail to see
what you are illustrating.

>
> >Why,exactly, did the human race need to become "ripe" in order to be saved?
>
> I am unqualified to answer completely as I do not have the mind of
> God.  I can only guess that something akin to the growing of a
> watermelon is at play.  It takes time to accomplish some things.

So, in order to maintain your belief in your religion, you basically
have to assume the answers to questions for which you really don't
know the answer to, rather than thinking critically about it?

>
> One explanation might just be the sheer numbers and God's desires.
> For example if God's desire is/was to have 10 billion children - if he
> just created them and there was no time, no generations, ho history
> then those kids would all pretty much be the same.  If however,
> thousands of years passed as those kids lived out their lives in a
> "simulation", those kids would all have unique characteristics and
> would develop interesting traits along the way.

This doesn't make any sense and ignores the fact that God could have
created the universe any way he chose. He didn't *need* to let
anything develope "naturally".

I find it interesting that, through our conversation, the original
point, through your evasion, has now been completely dropped. Was this
on purpose? Do you condone this dishonest behavior?

The original claim was made was that Adam and Eve were made aware of

the consequences of their actions.

This is clearly not true, what is your response? Can you point to the
scripture where God told Adam and Eve that:

He would increase the pains of childbirth.
He would subjugate women unto men?
He would add thorns and thistles to plants?
That they would have to grow their own crops to eat?
That they would be banished from Eden?

Prior to their eating of the tree?

[DreadGeekGrrl]

4praise:

Umm, there's a couple of problems. Why didn't God, if he wanted this,
just create people *with virtual memories*. We would, quite
literally, never know the difference. Now, I bring this up because
according to some creationists, god created light *already* in motion
from stars that did not yet exist so that they would be appropriately
red-shifted (I am NOT making this up, people really *Do* believe these
things). It is also maintained that god created the Earth with
dinosaur fossils in situ so that, later on, the planet would *appear*
to be older than it actually is. So if God was waiting for humans to
have a certain number then why on Earth didn't he just put 10 billion
people on the planet, at different stages of life and then make their
brains such that they had memories of their lives. Since we are very
effectively trapped inside our own minds we would NOT know the
difference.

There is a level of sadism in the way your god *has* to be in order
for your religion to make the claims about salvation that it does.
God, allegedly, *knew all along* that humans would be what we are and
yet set up rules that it would be *impossible* for anyone to follow
effectively and, to be honest, it wouldn't matter if someone did find
a way to obey all the laws because they would still not be perfect in
God's eyes and thus would still need Jesus. So he sets up a no-win
condition, becomes upset because humanity does not (because it cannot)
live up to those conditions and then sends himself to be killed so
that he will be appeased, provided that you believe the right things.
Not only is this inelegant as a solution it is *sadistic*. An
objective observer would state that god *wanted* to be made upset.

Let me give you two examples of what your god is doing, both from my
own life. At one point I was home from college visiting my parents, a
couple of my great-aunts on my mother's side were also there. I
hadn't seen either of these women since before I could talk and had no
memory of them. My mom leads me into the living room where they were
and, in full view and hearing of them says, "I bet you are so self-
absorbed you don't remember who these women are..." which, of course,
I didn't. She smiled because she had 'gotten' me. She had this script
that I was self-absorbed (I have a terrible memory for names) and she
set-up a situation where that was born out.

Years before that incident, I came home late from my after-school job
by, maybe, 10 minutes or so. My father had sealed the house, put the
chains on the door so I couldn't get in. The garage was locked. I
went to wear he parked the truck we used for repairs to our rental
properties because there was a spare key under the floor mat. There
was a blanket and pillow there. His plan was that I would fall asleep
in the truck and then, sometime in the wee hours of the morning, he
would come out and let me back into his home to show his generosity
and love. Now, I had called when the late rush hit and told them that
I would probably be late but that didn't matter. This is very much
like the "god has to have the threat of hell in front of humanity so
that he can show us his great and endless love by the gift of
salvation through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross".

Cheers
DGG

> ...
>
> read more »

[rappoccio]

Yeah, if you're stubborn like me, it takes a while before you
ultimately give up. At some point you just realize that it's really
pointless. :)

[rappoccio]

On Jul 15, 12:34 am, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> Let's compare those two things:
>
> 1. Homosexual activity
> OT - punishment is death
> NT - "internal" punishment (Romans 1:27)
>
> 2. Defiant behavior by a child
> OT - punishment is death
> NT - punishment is that things won't go well for you and your life
> span may be shortened (Ephesians 6:3)
>
> In the OT a judicial punishment is carried out under a theocratic
> rule.  In the NT man is relieved from having to mete out the
> punishment for these.
>
> The same is true with most of the laws - we don't stone adulterers -
> adultery is still bad and those that engage in it do experience
> consequences but we have been relieved from being responsible for
> their punishment.  I for one am grateful - thank you Jesus.

So much for God giving a consistent and eternal set of moral laws.

[rappoccio]

On Jul 15, 1:06 am, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> The bible requires understanding.  Just think about your point of view
> here...
>
> The writer of Genesis is so dumb that he writes down that God said
> they would die and then just a few pages later he writes about them
> eating and they don't die.  How can you imagine that the writer didn't
> understand that?  How can you imagine that every reader for the last
> 2500+ years didn't see that?
>
> The writer and virtually everyone that has ever read this story knows
> that the "death" spoken of was a spiritual death that also ultimately
> led to physical death.

So what the hell is all of this nonsense about "before the fall" and
that the world was "perfect" until a woman ate an apple in a magic
garden with a talking snake?

There is apparently nothing whatsoever in the Biblical account to
justify this. By your own admission, there is nothing stopping Adam
and Eve from already suffering a physical death. Spiritual death
would, a priori, be something entirely different. Physical death: Your
body dies. Spiritual death: Undefined by any of you as of yet, but
presumably then your actual "soul" could die.

So if this was apparent for the last 2500+ years of existence, why do
people still consider the earth to be "perfect" until the woman ate an
apple in a magic garden with a talking snake? Why would they consider
the human body to be "degraded" physically at all? There is absolutely
no justification in the narrative to support the fact that they would
have lived forever, if you now assume that there is merely a spiritual
death and not immediate actual death. So you can't have it both ways.
Which is it?

>
> > This is hardly the point, however, as death, spiritual or not, was not
> > the only consequences of eating from the tree. They were kicked out of
> > Eden, set to suffer in the world, and would pass on sin to their
> > offspring. None of this was explained to them beforehand, as was
> > previously claimed.
>
> Spiritual death included all of that. It may or may not have been
> explained, every communication between Adam and God is not recorded
> but it is not required that it be explained - how could you explain it
> to a man that had known nothing but paradise?  The word "death" is
> perhaps the most succinct and best word to describe it.
>
> The flood was not God's attempt to bring man back to the garden, it
> was his judgment against evil.  The story of Noah foreshadows God's
> ability and desire to redeem what he can from the destruction.

You're honestly telling me, with a straight face, that the entire
human race (every man, woman, child and infant) except for 8 people
were so evil that they deserved death by drowning?

You've got more problems than you realize.

> > Why wasn't Jesus born the day after Adam and Eve were kicked out?
>
> Why can't you grow a watermelon in 5 minutes?  The human race needed
> to become "ripe".

How do you know there weren't any people that were already ripe the
day after Adam and Eve were kicked out? Of course, by all of your
logic, they'd be sinners anyway because they all had to commit incest
to propagate the species, but let's go a little further down the
line.

> ...
>
> read more »

[rappoccio]

On Jul 15, 1:30 am, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> I don't understand the objection.
>
> Brock simply answers with quotes from a source that expresses his
> point of view.
>
> Why does that bother people?  Your free to say "well, the WMC is wrong
> because...."

Mostly because he's a dishonest, vainglorious, and sanctimonious ass
who doesn't actually answer direct questions. If I ask a question, and
get a reply from an unrelated quote from the Westcrapper Confession of
Stupidity and Dishonesty, then I don't consider that to be honest
debate tactics. It would literally be nonsense to reply to the
nonsensical post that he makes in reply, because it's already
tangential to the point. Answering something tangential to the point
with something tangential to the point, does not actually constitute a
discussion of the point.

So, we ignore him.

Look at someone like yourself. I would say that despite our
disagreements, we are capable of having a discussion. It's pretty safe
to say that we disagree about just about everything (nearly). However
you answer a question with an actual answer, and I attempt to do the
same. So I don't think that you're a reprehensible and dishonest
asshole. Thanks for that, by the way, you do at least attempt to make
responses. Brock Wall does nothing of the sort.

>
> > > Can you demonstrate that the confession is the correct interpretation
> > > of these things -- and if not, why should we care what it says?
>
> You don't have to care what it says any more than you need to care
> what anyone here says.  I don't believe that Brock is using the WMC as
> an appeal to authority - I think he just uses it because as he often
> says "he likes the way the confession puts it".

I think it's because he doesn't have any original thoughts on the
subject at all.

[rappoccio]

On Jul 15, 2:31 am, Stephen <stephen.p.cr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 15, 3:17 pm, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
>
> > > To be more constructive, one could suggest that Jesus himself is the
> > > word of God for Christians, not the Bible.
>
> > Yer preaching to the choir now brother :-)
>
> > John 1:1 says that Jesus is the Word.  There is a good deal of what I
> > call "bible-olatry" in the church.
>
> S: John 1 does identify Jesus as the Logos. I think most people would
> prefer Christians to ask "What Would Jesus Do?" instead of obeying the
> immoral commandments attributed to God.

Then what I'd like to ask those people is: Why do you oppose
homosexual marriage, or birth control, or stem cell research? I think
Jesus wouldn't really care less who married whom if the two people in
question are consenting adults, nor that Jesus would give two shits if
someone used a condom to have sex (after all, if God wanted the people
to get pregnant anyway, do you think a thirty micron wide piece of
latex would be able to stop him? If so... they that's a pretty weak-
assed God you've got there), nor that Jesus would not want actual,
living human beings to be trumped by the "rights" of a cell that is
not human, but merely has the POSSIBILITY of being human.

> Jesus' moral basis is
> incompatible with the Hebrew scriptures. It's takes little imagination
> to see why the "religious right" of his day crucified him. I can
> almost accept that today's religious right would have done the same
> thing.

Yes, and of course, the statements Jesus supposedly made that were
"fulfillment of the scriptures" were almost certainly included as
advertisement to the Jewish audience they were attempting to convert.
I'd be willing to wager top dollar that Jesus had very little interest
in justifying the Old Testament.

>
>
>
> > However, I will disagree on one point - the bible is far from
> > useless.  It contains records of God's revelations and is useful in
> > many ways.  The "Law" is "useless" when it comes to salvation but as 2
> > Timothy 3:16,17 says:
>
> > Every writing inspired by God is profitable for teaching, for reproof,
> > for correction, and for instruction in righteousness, that the man of
> > God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
>
> S: I find it interesting that the translation of 2 Tim 3:16 you've
> used doesn't translate the Greek "graphe" to solely incorporate the
> Hebrew (or Christian) scriptures. One could choose to translate the
> verse as "all literature is divinely breathed in and useful for
> teaching, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness". I like
> the idea that all religions have discovered something pragmatically
> useful. Also, one can (with some theological gymnastics!) even believe
> 2 Tim 3:16 without thinking it's kosher to stone your disobedient
> children to death.

I would phrase that differently. Religion has discovered nothing. The
parts of religion that are useful or "moral" are simply manifestations
of the innate biological predisposition we have toward BEING moral.
The rest is "God-of-the-gaps" arguments as to why it happened. We're
only now (in the last quarter century) understanding the neurobiology
of "why people do good things". We've made great strides in this
arena, frankly, and I think at this point it's prudent to say that we
are literally programmed for empathy, and in extension, morality. The
fact that religions often come up with the same answer is just an
extension of our own biological predispositions rather than some
ethical or moral breakthrough.

[rappoccio]

Excellent post, DGG! This is a fantastic explanation of the
situation.

> Let me give you two examples of what your god is doing, both from my
> own life.  At one point I was home from college visiting my parents, a
> couple of my great-aunts on my mother's side were also there.  I
> hadn't seen either of these women since before I could talk and had no
> memory of them.  My mom leads me into the living room where they were
> and, in full view and hearing of them says, "I bet you are so self-
> absorbed you don't remember who these women are..." which, of course,
> I didn't. She smiled because she had 'gotten' me.  She had this script
> that I was self-absorbed (I have a terrible memory for names) and she
> set-up a situation where that was born out.
>
> Years before that incident, I came home late from my after-school job
> by, maybe, 10 minutes or so.  My father had sealed the house, put the
> chains on the door so I couldn't get in.  The garage was locked.  I
> went to wear he parked the truck we used for repairs to our rental
> properties because there was a spare key under the floor mat.  There
> was a blanket and pillow there.  His plan was that I would fall asleep
> in the truck and then, sometime in the wee hours of the morning, he
> would come out and let me back into his home to show his generosity
> and love.  Now, I had called when the late rush hit and told them that
> I would probably be late but that didn't matter.  This is very much
> like the "god has to have the threat of hell in front of humanity so
> that he can show us his great and endless love by the gift of
> salvation through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross".

Yipes, your dad was hard on you!

> ...
>
> read more »

[DreadGeekGrrl]

4praise:

I'm curious, if, when asked about something in cosmology Rap
responded, not with his own words but with something copied and pasted
from some journal article, would you consider that a reasonable
response? If, when asked about something about evolutionary biology I
responded with something copied and pasted from a university website
would you think that I knew what I was on about? When challenged
about what WE thought on the matter (instead of what others thought on
the matter) we simply responded with more copying and pasting would
you not begin to suspect that, perhaps, we don't really know what
we're talking about? Now, if the answer is no then I, for one, am
going to stop going to the trouble of actually framing my thoughts
about an issue because sometimes its' a LOT of work to explain a topic
in such a way that it is accurate (to my understanding of the subject
matter) while not being so technical that no one but a student of the
subject can understand it.

I know that my *own* posting behavior makes the following assumptions:

1> If someone wanted to know what X website or book had to say about
the matter, they would go find that out themselves.
2> That if I state that Y is true, someone is going to fact check what
I've said so I had *better* have my facts in order.

So I presume that when Thea asked me about evolution she wasn't
interested in what Gould or Dawkins had to say on the matter because
if she was interested in their works, she would find them. I presumed
she wanted ME to defend MY position not them. I also assumed that if
I said that human beings are 98% genetically identical to chimps then
she would go and look that up. Again, I might be wrong. Perhaps I'm
giving the loyal opposition here altogether more credit and respect
than you deserve. Am I? Is that NOT the way it works for you?

Cheers
DGG

[rappoccio]

On Jul 15, 2:10 pm, DreadGeekGrrl <dreadg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 4praise:
>
> I'm curious, if, when asked about something in cosmology Rap
> responded, not with his own words but with something copied and pasted
> from some journal article, would you consider that a reasonable
> response?

Oh, hell, it's even worse than that with Brock Wall. It would be as if
I were asked about something in cosmology but I responded with a
journal article about plate tectonics.

[DreadGeekGrrl]

> I would phrase that differently. Religion has discovered nothing. The
> parts of religion that are useful or "moral" are simply manifestations
> of the innate biological predisposition we have toward BEING moral.
> The rest is "God-of-the-gaps" arguments as to why it happened. We're
> only now (in the last quarter century) understanding the neurobiology
> of "why people do good things". We've made great strides in this
> arena, frankly, and I think at this point it's prudent to say that we
> are literally programmed for empathy, and in extension, morality. The
> fact that religions often come up with the same answer is just an
> extension of our own biological predispositions rather than some
> ethical or moral breakthrough.

Rap:

Excellent point. I'm going to dovetail off it is close to inevitable
of what will come next; someone will almost certainly ask the question
"well, without god, why be moral" and this highlights yet another
problem with Christian morality as it is espoused here. If someone
asks you 'why be moral if there is no god' they are telling you
something vitally important about their own morality, namely that they
are 'good' not because they 'get it' as to why this is preferable
(certainly for the rest of us) but because of their belief in god and,
at best, their desire to be pleasing to that god. I'm going to ask a
question that I have yet to see a satisfactory answer to and which is
illustrative of the point;

If you believe in god, imagine that the next Sunday at church you are
taught that there is an *explicit* commandment that the faithful
should hunt down and kill the non-believer. There's no quibbling
about this. It's clearly in the context of the New Testament, let's
say it comes right after Jesus saying "I come not to bring peace but
the sword" so it's even in context of your savior's words. You are
now faced with a conundrum. Is the moral thing to do to kill every
non-believer you meet OR is it to find a way to disobey this
commandment? If you say that the moral thing to do is kill every non-
believer then that is a really important thing that the rest of us
would do well to remember about you. If, on the other hand, the moral
thing to do is NOT to kill the unbeliever then there must be some
reason *other* than 'thou shalt not kill' to refrain from killing.

Whenever theists bring up the idea that without god there would be no
morality, I like to toss that one out because it is very instructive
to see how they deal with it. Most of the time, of course, there's a
dodge that 'god would never command anything like that' (even though
god does command something *very* much like that in the Old Testament)
and that tactic is entirely unconvincing.

Cheers
DGG

[Dag Yo]

On Jul 14, 11:30 pm, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:

> I don't understand the objection.

The objection was that he didn't actually answer my question. My
question was not "why should we care?" anyone can see that that is the
case when he doesn't dishonestly snip my question. Especially after I
pose the question a second time in a way that makes it even more clear
that that isn't what I was asking.

> Brock simply answers with quotes from a source that expresses his
> point of view.

Thats another thing, Brock never says he likes it, and in fact he goes
out of his way to avoid saying that this is HIS point of view as
well. I and Bluesci for instance have asked him directly about this,
and we get dishonest as fuck answers along the lines of "I like the
way the confession puts it" -- and we knew that. And then he follows
it up with accusations that everyone but him is an existentialist.

> Why does that bother people? Your free to say "well, the WMC is wrong
> because...."

No, i'm not free to say that he's wrong, because he doesn't, and
won't, even explicitly state that this is his position.

[rappoccio]

On Jul 15, 3:36 pm, DreadGeekGrrl <dreadg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I would phrase that differently. Religion has discovered nothing. The
> > parts of religion that are useful or "moral" are simply manifestations
> > of the innate biological predisposition we have toward BEING moral.
> > The rest is "God-of-the-gaps" arguments as to why it happened. We're
> > only now (in the last quarter century) understanding the neurobiology
> > of "why people do good things". We've made great strides in this
> > arena, frankly, and I think at this point it's prudent to say that we
> > are literally programmed for empathy, and in extension, morality. The
> > fact that religions often come up with the same answer is just an
> > extension of our own biological predispositions rather than some
> > ethical or moral breakthrough.
>
> Rap:
>
> Excellent point.

Thanks ;)

> I'm going to dovetail off it is close to inevitable
> of what will come next; someone will almost certainly ask the question
> "well, without god, why be moral" and this highlights yet another
> problem with Christian morality as it is espoused here.  If someone
> asks you 'why be moral if there is no god' they are telling you
> something vitally important about their own morality, namely that they
> are 'good' not because they 'get it' as to why this is preferable
> (certainly for the rest of us) but because of their belief in god and,
> at best, their desire to be pleasing to that god.

Indeed. Being good because you'll be spanked if you're not, or given a
cookie if you are, isn't all that laudable. Furthermore, their
concepts of "without God, why be moral?" could equally well be asked
as "without God, why be immoral?" The intrinsic assumption is that God
rewards good behavior. There is no evidence to support that. It's
furthermore an extension of our neurobiological response to be good to
think that such a thing is not only beneficial and right, but
NECESSARY. We have an intrinsic need to assign "purpose" to this
because we don't understand it, and so come to the conclusion that
there must be something "out there" that makes it so and wants it to
happen. However, it's just MORE god-of-the-gaps. There is absolutely
nothing constraining God from rewarding the evil, or the intelligent,
or the assholes, or the dishonest. The Christian will tell us that we
don't understand God. I would agree with that, if only they would
admit that they really agree with what they're saying themselves!
While they say we can't understand God, simultaneously they pretend
that God must be moral.

However, to make that judgment, we must apply some external morality
to begin with, to discern whether God is himself moral. Obedience is
not morality. Obedience is obedience. My dog is obedient. My dog is
not moral. To demonstrate that your actions are simultaneously
obedient and moral, then you must demonstrate that what you are
obeying is moral. To do so, renders the point of asking "without God,
why be moral?" completely obsolete. Without humanism, we can't even
answer the question of whether or not God is moral! An omnipotent
being could in fact be immoral (and even the God of the Old Testament
is a perfect example of this).

This is not a new concept either. The Greeks, Romans, Egyptians,
Israelites, Hittites, Phoenicians, Sumerians, and many others had gods
that were often intrinsically immoral, hedonistic, opportunistic, and
used humanity as pawns to their advantage very often. There is nothing
a priori theologically wrong with these religions (no more than any
other). Furthermore the creator deities who designed the universe were
not, in fact, the "current ruling party", often being ousted by
newcomers that they either created, or fathered, or had under their
wing. There's nothing stopping any of this.

So ultimately, anyone who thinks there is no morality without God just
hasn't thought it through very much.

> I'm going to ask a
> question that I have yet to see a satisfactory answer to and which is
> illustrative of the point;



>
> If you believe in god, imagine that the next Sunday at church you are
> taught that there is an *explicit* commandment that the faithful
> should hunt down and kill the non-believer.  There's no quibbling
> about this.  It's clearly in the context of the New Testament, let's
> say it comes right after Jesus saying "I come not to bring peace but
> the sword" so it's even in context of your savior's words.  You are
> now faced with a conundrum.  Is the moral thing to do to kill every
> non-believer you meet OR is it to find a way to disobey this
> commandment?  If you say that the moral thing to do is kill every non-
> believer then that is a really important thing that the rest of us
> would do well to remember about you.  If, on the other hand, the moral
> thing to do is NOT to kill the unbeliever then there must be some
> reason *other* than 'thou shalt not kill' to refrain from killing.

Hehe, I know of at least one person (Vox Day) who said that he would
kill the infidels... he's an asshole, at least he's a CONSISTENT
asshole. In particular it was in context of a directive to murder all
the children of the earth, from what I recall. He said, basically,
that of course he would.

So, as of now, he is (thankfully) the only person I have ever heard of
that operates under faith in this circumstance.

[4praise]

> Again, I would contend that you are putting your *modern*
> interpretation on those words because the idea of putting homosexuals
> to death is, thankfully, distasteful to our modern sensibilities.

It's not really that modern. 2,000 years ago Jesus said "Let him that
is without sin cast the first stone"

> Now, why is he wrong and you are right? He has scripture to back up
> his points. Why is your interpretation the correct one?

I guess if Jim Rudd had been there at the time he would have picked up
rock and hurled at that slut in John chapter 8 :-)

> ...
>
> read more »

[4praise]

Critical thinking is exactly what I am talking about.

1. God told them they would "die" if they ate that fruit.
2. They ate it
3. Death came

For you the word "death" just refers to someone reaching room
temperature but to God it meant all those other consequences and the
most succinct label that I can put on that is "spiritual death".

If I may, you believe that either A) God was unfair with Adam and Eve
or B) the bible was written by morons.

There is no good result for you - if God was unfair, then there is a
God. If the bible was written by morons then those who appreciate and
accept must all be morons as well. That's hard to believe when you
compile a list of them.

> ...
>
> read more »

[4praise]

> Why didn't God, if he wanted this,
> just create people *with virtual memories*.

There are some "Matrix" fans that think that he did :-)

I know that you didn't relate those stories to get sympathy but I
couldn't help but feel it. As a fellow human that has been crapped on
my share of times, I'm sorry that you had those experiences.

I think it is only natural to think that God is sadistic given not
only your experiences but also some of the stories in the bible.
There is an often quoted scripture in the OT "The Fear of the Lord is
the beginning of wisdom". Preachers often try to rewrite that and say
that it is just referring to awe or reverence. But I think "fear" is
the correct word.

BUT, it's the "beginning" of wisdom, not the pinnacle of it. In the
NT it says "Love, when it is perfected, casts out all fear".

My hope for you is that you have a life filled with perfect love.

> ...
>
> read more »

[4praise]

> You're honestly telling me, with a straight face, that the entire
> human race (every man, woman, child and infant) except for 8 people
> were so evil that they deserved death by drowning?
>

If we ran these google groups with web cams you would soon realize
that I rarely say anything with a straight face. The more puzzling
part of the Noah story to me is what was so good about those 8? Right
after the flood Noah got drunk and fell asleep naked where everyone
could see him. But, who hasn't done that at least once?

> ...
>
> read more »

[4praise]

I don't mind someone pasting in a a sentence or two from an outside
source - in fact that seems normal to me.

I thought the objection was simply that Brock quoted from the WMC.

The practice of answering questions about the quotes with additional
quotes is actually kind of clever even if it is perhaps annoying. I
used to do that with Caddyshack quotes - I would tell someone "on your
deathbed you will receive total consciousness" and they would say "is
that a stupid Caddyshack quote" and I would say "goonga galoonga".
( If your not a Caddyshack fan, that probably made about as much sense
as the WMC).

[4praise]

isn't he saying it's his POV when he says "I like the way the
confession puts it..."?

[Dag Yo]

No 4praise, saying that you like the way something is put does not
mean that it represents your point of view, it simply means that you
like it.

If Brock said something like "I could rebut your argument using my own
words, but instead I think i'll just paste a page out of the
confession because it says exactly the argument that I would use", I
would think two things. Firstly, if he did it all the time, I would
think he's a brainless idiot for not being able to put things into his
own words, and secondly I would think to myself, something like good,
I guess i'll read this stuff, see if it's logically sound and if it
isn't i'll write a response back about why it's not a good argument.

But Brock doesn't say that it's representative of his viewpoint, he
doesn't say it's representative of his argument. And on numerous
occasions when myself or other people have attempted to figure out why
he copy and pastes this shit everywhere, he won't say whether it is,
in his view, true or correct he'll simply repeat the same shit about
his preference for it, his like of it, or that it is a "useful*"
summary of the bible. Face it, Brock goes out of his way to NOT stand
by anything he posts, and NOT post arguments.

*you'll notice that the word "useful" doesn't have one iota of meaning
used in this sort of context.

[DreadGeekGrrl]

4praise:

No, my issue is not WHERE he sources from. It's that (and I realize
I'm using hypberbole here) if I asked Brock the time of day, he
wouldn't look at his watch and tell me the time of day. He'd find a
quote from someone that, if he were feeling generous, might actually
be ABOUT how god made time. When asked what this had to do with the
time of day, he'd find *another* quote and paste that in.

So I take it that I am incorrect? That my two working assumptions are
wrong and that there is simply no point (other than my own sense of
integrity) to actually fact check *or* to using my own words? Because
ultimately, that's the question I asked you and it would appear, from
your answer, that it is the case. If so, and your statement about
answering quotes with other quotes being clever strongly suggests that
my supposition is correct, why do Christians come here? I mean if
you're not interested in engaging in a dialog and if the purpose of
any discourse is to be annoying, why do you do it?

Cheers
DGG

[Drafterman]

On Jul 16, 2:09 am, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> Critical thinking is exactly what I am talking about.
>
> 1. God told them they would "die" if they ate that fruit.
> 2. They ate it
> 3. Death came
>
> For you the word "death" just refers to someone reaching room
> temperature but to God it meant all those other consequences and the
> most succinct label that I can put on that is "spiritual death".

Again, it doesn't matter what God meant, it matters what Adam and Eve
thought it meant. The default meaning of "death", with no qualifiers,
is physical death.

What is interesting is that the spiritual death is never mentioned
after Adam and Eve ate the fruit. I find that rather odd.

>
> If I may, you believe that either A) God was unfair with Adam and Eve
> or B) the bible was written by morons.

I don't think it was written by morons. I think it is held as true
today, by morons.

>
> There is no good result for you - if God was unfair, then there is a
> God.  If the bible was written by morons then those who appreciate and
> accept must all be morons as well.  That's hard to believe when you
> compile a list of them.

Smart people can believe stupid things. Also, we can evaluate
fictional characters.

Aslo, you have again missed the original point. The first time could
just have been a mistake, but since you have chopped it off again,
after me having explicitly written it out, I can only attribute it to
dishonest now. Do you derive this dishonesty from your Christianity?

For your benefit:

[DreadGeekGrrl]

4praise;

Are you going to address the issue? I appreciate the sympathy
although both incidents are the best part of a quarter century or more
in the past. The reason I posted them is that they are *perfect*
examples of what Christians claim god does.

Btw. when I *was* a Christian I never, not once, heard a preacher or
minister say that 'you shall truly die' referred to spiritual death.
What we learned is that Adam and Eve were disobedient, god had every
right to kill them on the spot because that's what he said would
happen, and then god had mercy on them and didn't. I don't know
*what* god you are talking about but the god I grew up with was,
obviously, very different because there was no allegory. When the
Bible said "you shall surely die" what the Bible meant was "you will
*die*". Not spiritual death--which you have failed to define by the
way.

Cheers
DGG

> ...
>
> read more »

[DreadGeekGrrl]

4praise;

Pardon me for being obtuse, but that's not an answer. Why is HIS
interpretation wrong and YOUR interpretation correct? Because, from
where I sit, his interpretation seems to be the more straight-forward
one. Yours appears to take quite a bit more of "well, you have to
consider..." while his takes the words on the page, assumes they mean
precisely what they appear to, and he goes right to the inevitable
conclusion. So, let's try this again. Why is HIS interpretation
incorrect and yours is correct?

Cheers
DGG

> ...
>
> read more »

[DreadGeekGrrl]

4praise;

Fallacy of the excluded middle. There are more than two
alternatives. The Bible is a collection of myths, poetry and
stories. The earliest parts of the Bible were all tribal, sectarian
stories passed along verbally until they were written down (no earlier
than 600 BCE if memory serves). The stories are allegorical and
meant to express some meaningful lesson to a group of nomadic
pastoralists who didn't appear to get on well with their neighbors.
There's THAT possibility but for some reason Christians never appear
ready to concede that perhaps, just perhaps, their religion has much
more in common with the religion of the Greeks than not.

Cheers
DGG

> ...
>
> read more »

[rappoccio]

On Jul 16, 12:52 am, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> > Again, I would contend that you are putting your *modern*
> > interpretation on those words because the idea of putting homosexuals
> > to death is, thankfully, distasteful to our modern sensibilities.
>
> It's not really that modern.  2,000 years ago Jesus said "Let him that
> is without sin cast the first stone"

That's not actually saying it's wrong.

> > Now, why is he wrong and you are right?  He has scripture to back up
> > his points.  Why is your interpretation the correct one?
>
> I guess if Jim Rudd had been there at the time he would have picked up
> rock and hurled at that slut in John chapter 8 :-)

Indeed. So again. Why is your interpretation the correct one?

> ...
>
> read more »

[rappoccio]

On Jul 16, 1:36 am, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> > You're honestly telling me, with a straight face, that the entire
> > human race (every man, woman, child and infant) except for 8 people
> > were so evil that they deserved death by drowning?
>
> If we ran these google groups with web cams you would soon realize
> that I rarely say anything with a straight face.  The more puzzling
> part of the Noah story to me is what was so good about those 8?  Right
> after the flood Noah got drunk and fell asleep naked where everyone
> could see him.  But, who hasn't done that at least once?

So I think you see the point... killing everyone else on earth for
similar stupid "indiscretions" is ridiculous and highlights the
immorality of such a deity. Other deities have done similar things in
other stories that people find heinous. Why should this one be
different? In fact, we can demonstrate, precisely, that there was no
global flood to begin with. We can demonstrate that we are indeed
talking explicitly about a fairy tale. Why do some Christians insist
upon

A. Insisting that it happened.

and

B. That God was doing the right thing when it did.

This frankly baffles me.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Brock Organ]

On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:34 AM, rappoccio <rapp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why do some Christians insist upon
>
> A. Insisting that it happened.

The Bible testifies that it occurred. :)

> and
>
> B. That God was doing the right thing when it did.

As the Bible testifies, God's character is wonderful and Holy. His
judgements are simply right. :)

> This frankly baffles me.

I think it would be the "I think I know better than God" existential
and humanistic approach that is leading you astray. :)

Regards,

Brock

[4praise]

> Are you going to address the issue?

I lost track - what is it?

> ...
>
> read more »

[4praise]

Mine is chronological. To borrow from an analogy that I used
earlier... Rudd is making direct quotes but they are from the 1962 tax
code and you can't use that to file your taxes in 2008.

His does have some NT references but those are "interpreted" by him.
I am not interpreting what Jesus did. He stopped a woman from being
stoned for adultery.

> ...
>
> read more »

[DreadGeekGrrl]

4praise:

Yes, but he didn't stop a woman from being stoned for homosexuality.
As I'm sure you've noticed, many modern Christian churches wish to
prevent gays and lesbians from being married (and some would like to
go further and prevent laws that protect gays and lesbians from being
fired for being gay or lesbian) but, interestingly enough, they
*don't* want to prevent people who have divorced or committed adultery
or had sex out of wedlock (provided it was heterosexual) from being
married. So I believe that the church makes a bit of a distinction.
So, again, why is YOUR interpretation correct and his wrong? Now, I'm
not saying I prefer his interpretation to yours, of course. However,
I think that of the two you he is reading far *less* into the text
than you are. You are saying that Jesus stopping a woman from being
stoned because of adultery applies to homosexuals but there's nothing
in there about homosexuals. Going by the letter of the text, it
applies to adultery full-stop. Not a word about homosexuals. So your
argument, while certainly more humanistic and more in line with modern
society, actually *supports* my contention that many modern Christians
read the Bible through an interpretative filter *very highly mediated*
by modern, humanistic and liberal in its nature. Rudd, it would
appear, is practicing 'that old time religion' and you appear to be
practicing something very much different.

Btw. about the spiritual death thing in Genesis. I don't know where
you went to seminary (if you did) and I certainly have no idea where
your pastor went to seminary but when *I* was a Christian there was no
such interpretation about spiritual death. God said "you shall surely
die" and that's what it meant. This idea of a spiritual death is what
we would have called 'lukewarm Christianity' in that you are trying to
make the Bible sound 'nice' to modern ears. My church didn't go in
for that.

Cheers
DGG

> ...
>
> read more »

[thea]

On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 7:36 AM, DreadGeekGrrl <drea...@gmail.com> wrote:

4praise:

Yes, but he didn't stop a woman from being stoned for homosexuality.

 

and exactly where and when and where found?  thea

As I'm sure you've noticed, many modern Christian churches wish to
prevent gays and lesbians from being married (and some would like to
go further and prevent laws that protect gays and lesbians from being
fired for being gay or lesbian) but, interestingly enough, they
*don't* want to prevent people who have divorced or committed adultery
or had sex out of wedlock (provided it was heterosexual) from being
married.  So I believe that the church makes a bit of a distinction.
So, again, why is YOUR interpretation correct and his wrong?  Now, I'm
not saying I prefer his interpretation to yours, of course.  However,
I think that of the two you he is reading far *less* into the text
than you are.  You are saying that Jesus stopping a woman from being
stoned because of adultery applies to homosexuals but there's nothing
in there about homosexuals.  Going by the letter of the text, it
applies to adultery full-stop.  Not a word about homosexuals.  So your
argument, while certainly more humanistic and more in line with modern
society, actually *supports* my contention that many modern Christians
read the Bible through an interpretative filter *very highly mediated*
by modern, humanistic and liberal in its nature.  Rudd, it would
appear, is practicing 'that old time religion' and you appear to be
practicing something very much different.

 

Romans 1 has always been applied to homosexuality today.  But Romans 1 is talking about the setting aside of Israel that Jesus could come to all.

The problem with the church is, that people are trying to be *better than someone else* without realizing that *all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.* 

Jesus, would not condemn any but the house of Israel.  In fact the first missionary was the *woman at the well,* and she wasn't a Jew.

Jesus came that we all could have life and life more abundantly.  He wants us to *believe in ME* and I WILL! 

thea

Btw. about the spiritual death thing in Genesis.  I don't know where
you went to seminary (if you did) and I certainly have no idea where
your pastor went to seminary but when *I* was a Christian there was no
such interpretation about spiritual death.  God said "you shall surely
die" and that's what it meant.  This idea of a spiritual death is what
we would have called 'lukewarm Christianity' in that you are trying to
make the Bible sound 'nice' to modern ears.  My church didn't go in
for that.

 

We all have gained from the death of Genesis.  Like you pointed out to me elsewhere, DGG, we will die -- but I believe that *after that the judgement*.  The question is, there are two judgements listed, the BEMA seat where people who believe on Jesus go for their rewards, and the final judgement of Revelation which is the parting of the sheep and goats.  And the big question is, which judgement would you rather be at?  thea

Cheers
DGG

 

[DreadGeekGrrl]

On Jul 16, 11:28 pm, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> > Are you going to address the issue?
>
> I lost track - what is it?

Here's the original bit I wanted addressed. We'll see if you'll
actually answer me or if you're just playing cheeky games.

> ...
>
> read more »

[4praise]

If your point is that the church is confused, hypocritical and
inconsistent in regard to homosexual behavior, I concede. Gluttony is
wrong. But churches don't single out fat people and tell them that
they can't be right with God until they drop 50 pounds. Instead,
churches have "food orgies" called pot lucks where they celebrate
gluttony. Very strange and very inconsistent.

I had never heard the explanation that your childhood pastor gave for
Adam and Eve not dying instantly. It sounds like a valid point of
view - that God relented or had mercy on them and therefore delayed
the penalty phase. However, I still think that my lukewarm
interpretation is better ;)

> ...
>
> read more »

[Drafterman]

On Jul 17, 1:44 pm, 4praise <re...@rawministry.org> wrote:
> If your point is that the church is confused, hypocritical and
> inconsistent in regard to homosexual behavior, I concede.  Gluttony is
> wrong.  But churches don't single out fat people and tell them that
> they can't be right with God until they drop 50 pounds.  Instead,
> churches have "food orgies" called pot lucks where they celebrate
> gluttony.  Very strange and very inconsistent.
>
> I had never heard the explanation that your childhood pastor gave for
> Adam and Eve not dying instantly.  It sounds like a valid point of
> view - that God relented or had mercy on them and therefore delayed
> the penalty phase.  However, I still think that my lukewarm
> interpretation is better ;)

And yet you can provide no objective reason why your interpretation is
better, and thus highlight the uselessness of the Bible as a guide.