|
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,284 Likes: 1
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,284 Likes: 1 |
These hidebound skeptics that show up.....,the seagulls....are simply sitting in their own judgment of God. They are actually “judging” God. Of course, this doesn’t turn out to well for them.
What happened to them? Non participants in the kingdom of God. By their own choices. Non participants now and then forever if they do not seek God...... What is so unwell about that? Pretty obvious. You either dumb as a box of rocks or simply trolling.
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
By what moral law that was in effect. The inability to grasp the simple logic of ancient times is mind boggling.
What you fail to consider is that we are not discussing ''the moral law in effect'' as displayed by the people in that time and place, but the moral values of God as described in the bible, especially the dichotomy between the new testament version of god and the war god of the tribe of Israel, Yahweh. That is the contradiction. Putting this simply--there is no atrocity unless there is a moral standard of judgment. There is no contradiction between the Testaments because the Old prophesied about the New. There is no contradiction when change is prophesied and then implemented. What these last few pages represent is that the skeptics were not able to make any compelling points on this thread for their positions and this is their last stand/holdout. You know or should know by now that if you lose this argument you have no more blanks to fire. Skepticism by its very nature is logically indefensible because the best it can do is speculate on probability, attack the leading evidence against their case, and avoid offering anything of moral substance for others to critique.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,999
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,999 |
By what moral law that was in effect. The inability to grasp the simple logic of ancient times is mind boggling.
What you fail to consider is that we are not discussing ''the moral law in effect'' as displayed by the people in that time and place, but the moral values of God as described in the bible, especially the dichotomy between the new testament version of god and the war god of the tribe of Israel, Yahweh. That is the contradiction. Putting this simply--there is no atrocity unless there is a moral standard of judgment. There is no contradiction between the Testaments because the Old prophesied about the New. There is no contradiction when change is prophesied and then implemented. What these last few pages represent is that the skeptics were not able to make any compelling points on this thread for their positions and this is their last stand/holdout. You know or should know by now that if you lose this argument you have no more blanks to fire. Skepticism by its very nature is logically indefensible because the best it can do is speculate on probability, attack the leading evidence against their case, and avoid offering anything of moral substance for others to critique. What is logically indefensible is giving faith to a putative omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God that required an overhaul of his testament with a new testament. A real perfect God would have gotten it right the first time.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,999
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,999 |
These hidebound skeptics that show up.....,the seagulls....are simply sitting in their own judgment of God. They are actually “judging” God. Of course, this doesn’t turn out to well for them.
What happened to them? Non participants in the kingdom of God. By their own choices. Non participants now and then forever if they do not seek God...... What is so unwell about that? Pretty obvious. You either dumb as a box of rocks or simply trolling. Show how it went unwell with all the people that were faithful to other gods and specifically how it would have turned out better if they believed as you do. That is your claim. If it is so obvious, prove it.....logically.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,999
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,999 |
I'm wondering if we will get any hand-wringing over the Assyrian brutality of war in honor to their gods. While Israel's occupation campaign was limited to a specific time and geographical boundaries the Assyrians plundered with impunity. Let the moral outrage begin with the Assyrians According to the narrative representations on these reliefs, the Assyrians never lost a battle. Indeed, no Assyrian
soldier is ever shown wounded or killed. The benevolence of the gods is always bestowed on the Assyrian king
and his troops.
Like the official written records, the scenes and figures are selected and arranged to record the king’s heroic
deeds and to describe him as “beloved of the gods”:
“The king, who acts with the support of the great gods his lords and has conquered all
lands, gained dominion over all highlands and received their tribute, captures of hostages,
he who is victorious over all countries.” †
The inscriptions and the pictorial evidence both provide detailed information regarding the Assyrian treatment
of conquered peoples, their armies and their rulers. In his official royal inscriptions, Ashurnasirpal II calls
himself the “trampler of all enemies … who defeated all his enemies [and] hung the corpses of his enemies on
posts.” † The treatment of captured enemies often depended on their readiness to submit themselves to the will
of the Assyrian king:
“The nobles [and] elders of the city came out to me to save their lives. They seized my
feet and said: ‘If it pleases you, kill! If it pleases you, spare! If it pleases you, do what
you will!’” †
In one case when a city resisted as long as possible instead of immediately submitting, Ashurnasirpal proudly
records his punishment:
Assyrian headhunters gather their trophies. In a relief from
Sennacherib’s palace at Nineveh, two scribes, standing side by side at
right, record the number of the enemy slain in a campaign in southern
Mesopotamia. Heads lie in a heap at their feet. The foreground scribe
uses pen and ink on a leather scroll; the other scribe writes with a stylus
on a hinged writing-board coated with wax.
“I flayed as many nobles as had rebelled against me [and] draped their skins over the pile
[of corpses]; some I spread out within the pile, some I erected on stakes upon the pile … I
flayed many right through my land [and] draped their skins over the walls.” †
The account was probably intended not only to describe what had happened, but also to frighten anyone who
might dare to resist. To suppress his enemies was the king’s divine task. Supported by the gods, he always had
to be victorious in battle and to punish disobedient people:
“I felled 50 of their fighting men with the sword, burnt 200 captives from them, [and]
defeated in a battle on the plain 332 troops. … With their blood I dyed the mountain red
like red wool, [and] the rest of them the ravines [and] torrents of the mountain
swallowed. I carried off captives [and] possessions from them. I cut off the heads of their
fighters [and] built [therewith] a tower before their city. I burnt their adolescent boys
[and] girls.” †
A description of another conquest is even worse:
“In strife and conflict I besieged [and] conquered the city. I felled 3,000 of their fighting
men with the sword … I captured many troops alive: I cut off of some their arms [and]
hands; I cut off of others their noses, ears, [and] extremities. I gouged out the eyes of
many troops. I made one pile of the living [and] one of heads. I hung their heads on trees
around the city.” †
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f4af/bb82f1b7920fa9444e29eb128bd13832cd46.pdf
How cruel were the New Assyrian Kings? What were there reasons? And finally, what were the effects of such cruelty they exemplified?
Many Kings of Assyrian had displayed proudly their cruelty towards their enemies. Sometimes in reliefs or in their annals, New Assyrian gave detail of their gory exploits against their opponents. King Ashurnasirpal laid out many of his sadistic activities in one of his annals. He liked burning, skinning, and decapitating his enemies. When he defeated a rebelling city, he made sure they pay a huge price. Disobedient cities were destroyed and razed to the ground with fire, with their wealth and all material riches taken by the king. Their youth and women were either burned alive or made into slaves or placed into the harem. In the City of Nistun, Ashurnasirpal showed how he cut of the heads of 260 rebelling soldiers and piled it together. Their leader named Bubu suffered horrific punishment. He was flayed and his skin was placed in the walls of Arbail. In the city of Suri, rebelling nobles were also skinned and were displayed like trophies. Some skin were left to rot but some were placed in a stake. Officials of the city suffered decapitation of their limbs. The leader of the Suri rebellion, Ahiyababa, underwent flaying and his skin was then placed in the walls of Niniveh. After Ashurnasirpal defeated the city of Tila, he ordered to cut the hands and feet of the soldiers of the fallen city. Other than that, some soldiers found themselves without noses and ears. But also, many defeated soldiers had their eyes gouged out. The heads of the leaders of the Tila were hang in the trees around the city.
Ashurnasirpal was not alone in having a psychotic mind. Many of his successors followed his brutality towards enemies. Shalmaneser III had 20,500 enemy soldiers killed by arrow fire. Rebelling cities were “dug up” and burned with fire. Usually, surrounding towns of the unlucky city also suffered the same fate. Shalmaneser III also illustrated in his relief and carvings how he burned the children of defeated cities. Moreover, he ordered the beheading of the soldiers of disloyal cities and made a pyramid from the heads at the gates of the defeated cities. One time, after he defeated the rebelling city of Arzaskhu, he fastened people alive in the pyramids of heads alongside with pole, which had also alive captured soldiers dangling.
https://searchinginhistory.blogspot.com/2015/02/cruelty-instrument-of-assyrian-control.html All that verbiage. Impressive. Is there a point?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
By what moral law that was in effect. The inability to grasp the simple logic of ancient times is mind boggling.
What you fail to consider is that we are not discussing ''the moral law in effect'' as displayed by the people in that time and place, but the moral values of God as described in the bible, especially the dichotomy between the new testament version of god and the war god of the tribe of Israel, Yahweh. That is the contradiction. Putting this simply--there is no atrocity unless there is a moral standard of judgment. There is no contradiction between the Testaments because the Old prophesied about the New. There is no contradiction when change is prophesied and then implemented. What these last few pages represent is that the skeptics were not able to make any compelling points on this thread for their positions and this is their last stand/holdout. You know or should know by now that if you lose this argument you have no more blanks to fire. Skepticism by its very nature is logically indefensible because the best it can do is speculate on probability, attack the leading evidence against their case, and avoid offering anything of moral substance for others to critique. What is logically indefensible is giving faith to a putative omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God that required an overhaul of his testament with a new testament. A real perfect God would have gotten right the first time. Everything was originally created perfect and then man sinned. The sinful human nature is undeniably present in the selfish nature of a child.The problem is not God but with what man has done with their opportunities and thus God has incrementally brought the human race to the point where they could receive His full revelation. With the human race so depraved God started with a small nation and miraculously preserved it through all odds. He used extreme measures because the pagan world at that time was very brutal. By introducing laws that met the times He was able to work with mankind to bring them to His full revelation. Had Jesus appeared in the patriarchal age there would have no way to spread it rapidly through the world so that His death and resurrection could be investigated. Working through human history God established a nation, then when that nation dispersed His prophecies were also spread before they could be fulfilled. The Greeks brought a common language and the Romans a network of roads. This introduced the advent of Christ.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
Show how it went unwell with all the people that were faithful to other gods and specifically how it would have turned out better if they believed as you do.
That is your claim.
If it is so obvious, prove it.....logically. Rather easy to prove ... the Jews and their book survived while the other nations and races of ancient history have largely disappeared and their beliefs are not even debated today like are with the Jewish laws..
Last edited by Thunderstick; 07/10/19.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
I'm wondering if we will get any hand-wringing over the Assyrian brutality of war in honor to their gods. While Israel's occupation campaign was limited to a specific time and geographical boundaries the Assyrians plundered with impunity. Let the moral outrage begin with the Assyrians According to the narrative representations on these reliefs, the Assyrians never lost a battle. Indeed, no Assyrian
soldier is ever shown wounded or killed. The benevolence of the gods is always bestowed on the Assyrian king
and his troops.
Like the official written records, the scenes and figures are selected and arranged to record the king’s heroic
deeds and to describe him as “beloved of the gods”:
“The king, who acts with the support of the great gods his lords and has conquered all
lands, gained dominion over all highlands and received their tribute, captures of hostages,
he who is victorious over all countries.” †
The inscriptions and the pictorial evidence both provide detailed information regarding the Assyrian treatment
of conquered peoples, their armies and their rulers. In his official royal inscriptions, Ashurnasirpal II calls
himself the “trampler of all enemies … who defeated all his enemies [and] hung the corpses of his enemies on
posts.” † The treatment of captured enemies often depended on their readiness to submit themselves to the will
of the Assyrian king:
“The nobles [and] elders of the city came out to me to save their lives. They seized my
feet and said: ‘If it pleases you, kill! If it pleases you, spare! If it pleases you, do what
you will!’” †
In one case when a city resisted as long as possible instead of immediately submitting, Ashurnasirpal proudly
records his punishment:
Assyrian headhunters gather their trophies. In a relief from
Sennacherib’s palace at Nineveh, two scribes, standing side by side at
right, record the number of the enemy slain in a campaign in southern
Mesopotamia. Heads lie in a heap at their feet. The foreground scribe
uses pen and ink on a leather scroll; the other scribe writes with a stylus
on a hinged writing-board coated with wax.
“I flayed as many nobles as had rebelled against me [and] draped their skins over the pile
[of corpses]; some I spread out within the pile, some I erected on stakes upon the pile … I
flayed many right through my land [and] draped their skins over the walls.” †
The account was probably intended not only to describe what had happened, but also to frighten anyone who
might dare to resist. To suppress his enemies was the king’s divine task. Supported by the gods, he always had
to be victorious in battle and to punish disobedient people:
“I felled 50 of their fighting men with the sword, burnt 200 captives from them, [and]
defeated in a battle on the plain 332 troops. … With their blood I dyed the mountain red
like red wool, [and] the rest of them the ravines [and] torrents of the mountain
swallowed. I carried off captives [and] possessions from them. I cut off the heads of their
fighters [and] built [therewith] a tower before their city. I burnt their adolescent boys
[and] girls.” †
A description of another conquest is even worse:
“In strife and conflict I besieged [and] conquered the city. I felled 3,000 of their fighting
men with the sword … I captured many troops alive: I cut off of some their arms [and]
hands; I cut off of others their noses, ears, [and] extremities. I gouged out the eyes of
many troops. I made one pile of the living [and] one of heads. I hung their heads on trees
around the city.” †
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f4af/bb82f1b7920fa9444e29eb128bd13832cd46.pdf
How cruel were the New Assyrian Kings? What were there reasons? And finally, what were the effects of such cruelty they exemplified?
Many Kings of Assyrian had displayed proudly their cruelty towards their enemies. Sometimes in reliefs or in their annals, New Assyrian gave detail of their gory exploits against their opponents. King Ashurnasirpal laid out many of his sadistic activities in one of his annals. He liked burning, skinning, and decapitating his enemies. When he defeated a rebelling city, he made sure they pay a huge price. Disobedient cities were destroyed and razed to the ground with fire, with their wealth and all material riches taken by the king. Their youth and women were either burned alive or made into slaves or placed into the harem. In the City of Nistun, Ashurnasirpal showed how he cut of the heads of 260 rebelling soldiers and piled it together. Their leader named Bubu suffered horrific punishment. He was flayed and his skin was placed in the walls of Arbail. In the city of Suri, rebelling nobles were also skinned and were displayed like trophies. Some skin were left to rot but some were placed in a stake. Officials of the city suffered decapitation of their limbs. The leader of the Suri rebellion, Ahiyababa, underwent flaying and his skin was then placed in the walls of Niniveh. After Ashurnasirpal defeated the city of Tila, he ordered to cut the hands and feet of the soldiers of the fallen city. Other than that, some soldiers found themselves without noses and ears. But also, many defeated soldiers had their eyes gouged out. The heads of the leaders of the Tila were hang in the trees around the city.
Ashurnasirpal was not alone in having a psychotic mind. Many of his successors followed his brutality towards enemies. Shalmaneser III had 20,500 enemy soldiers killed by arrow fire. Rebelling cities were “dug up” and burned with fire. Usually, surrounding towns of the unlucky city also suffered the same fate. Shalmaneser III also illustrated in his relief and carvings how he burned the children of defeated cities. Moreover, he ordered the beheading of the soldiers of disloyal cities and made a pyramid from the heads at the gates of the defeated cities. One time, after he defeated the rebelling city of Arzaskhu, he fastened people alive in the pyramids of heads alongside with pole, which had also alive captured soldiers dangling.
https://searchinginhistory.blogspot.com/2015/02/cruelty-instrument-of-assyrian-control.html All that verbiage. Impressive. Is there a point? Yup it was noted at the outset--where is the moral outrage over the Assyrian gods--no one even takes them seriously today but here we are debating the Bible. This debate itself is proof that Bible stands well above all other attempts by BC man to formulate morals, religion, irreligion, philosophy or skepticism.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,999
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,999 |
Show how it went unwell with all the people that were faithful to other gods and specifically how it would have turned out better if they believed as you do.
That is your claim.
If it is so obvious, prove it.....logically. Rather easy to prove ... the Jews and their book survived while the other nations and races of ancient history have largely disappeared and their beliefs are not even debated today like are with the Jewish laws.. So a better fate is just being debated about afterwards. Well alrighty then. I guess believing in Allah would be just as dandy if survival and being debated about is the end fate.
Last edited by carbon12; 07/10/19. Reason: added uuuuurp
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,999
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,999 |
By what moral law that was in effect. The inability to grasp the simple logic of ancient times is mind boggling.
What you fail to consider is that we are not discussing ''the moral law in effect'' as displayed by the people in that time and place, but the moral values of God as described in the bible, especially the dichotomy between the new testament version of god and the war god of the tribe of Israel, Yahweh. That is the contradiction. Putting this simply--there is no atrocity unless there is a moral standard of judgment. There is no contradiction between the Testaments because the Old prophesied about the New. There is no contradiction when change is prophesied and then implemented. What these last few pages represent is that the skeptics were not able to make any compelling points on this thread for their positions and this is their last stand/holdout. You know or should know by now that if you lose this argument you have no more blanks to fire. Skepticism by its very nature is logically indefensible because the best it can do is speculate on probability, attack the leading evidence against their case, and avoid offering anything of moral substance for others to critique. What is logically indefensible is giving faith to a putative omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God that required an overhaul of his testament with a new testament. A real perfect God would have gotten right the first time. The sinful human nature is undeniably present in the selfish nature of a child.The problem is not God but with what man has done with their opportunities and thus God has incrementally brought the human race to the point where they could receive His full revelation. With the human race so depraved God started with a small nation and miraculously preserved it through all odds. He used extreme measures because the pagan world at that time was very brutal. By introducing laws that met the times He was able to work with mankind to bring them to His full revelation. Had Jesus appeared in the patriarchal age there would have no way to spread it rapidly through the world so that His death and resurrection could be investigated. Working through human history God established a nation, then when that nation dispersed His prophecies were also spread before they could be fulfilled. The Greeks brought a common language and the Romans a network of roads. This introduced the advent of Christ. Whoa! What you just said is: man was able to derail God's Original Perfect Plan pretty much at the very onset. Does not say much about where God got his omniscience.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,999
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,999 |
I'm wondering if we will get any hand-wringing over the Assyrian brutality of war in honor to their gods. While Israel's occupation campaign was limited to a specific time and geographical boundaries the Assyrians plundered with impunity. Let the moral outrage begin with the Assyrians According to the narrative representations on these reliefs, the Assyrians never lost a battle. Indeed, no Assyrian
soldier is ever shown wounded or killed. The benevolence of the gods is always bestowed on the Assyrian king
and his troops.
Like the official written records, the scenes and figures are selected and arranged to record the king’s heroic
deeds and to describe him as “beloved of the gods”:
“The king, who acts with the support of the great gods his lords and has conquered all
lands, gained dominion over all highlands and received their tribute, captures of hostages,
he who is victorious over all countries.” †
The inscriptions and the pictorial evidence both provide detailed information regarding the Assyrian treatment
of conquered peoples, their armies and their rulers. In his official royal inscriptions, Ashurnasirpal II calls
himself the “trampler of all enemies … who defeated all his enemies [and] hung the corpses of his enemies on
posts.” † The treatment of captured enemies often depended on their readiness to submit themselves to the will
of the Assyrian king:
“The nobles [and] elders of the city came out to me to save their lives. They seized my
feet and said: ‘If it pleases you, kill! If it pleases you, spare! If it pleases you, do what
you will!’” †
In one case when a city resisted as long as possible instead of immediately submitting, Ashurnasirpal proudly
records his punishment:
Assyrian headhunters gather their trophies. In a relief from
Sennacherib’s palace at Nineveh, two scribes, standing side by side at
right, record the number of the enemy slain in a campaign in southern
Mesopotamia. Heads lie in a heap at their feet. The foreground scribe
uses pen and ink on a leather scroll; the other scribe writes with a stylus
on a hinged writing-board coated with wax.
“I flayed as many nobles as had rebelled against me [and] draped their skins over the pile
[of corpses]; some I spread out within the pile, some I erected on stakes upon the pile … I
flayed many right through my land [and] draped their skins over the walls.” †
The account was probably intended not only to describe what had happened, but also to frighten anyone who
might dare to resist. To suppress his enemies was the king’s divine task. Supported by the gods, he always had
to be victorious in battle and to punish disobedient people:
“I felled 50 of their fighting men with the sword, burnt 200 captives from them, [and]
defeated in a battle on the plain 332 troops. … With their blood I dyed the mountain red
like red wool, [and] the rest of them the ravines [and] torrents of the mountain
swallowed. I carried off captives [and] possessions from them. I cut off the heads of their
fighters [and] built [therewith] a tower before their city. I burnt their adolescent boys
[and] girls.” †
A description of another conquest is even worse:
“In strife and conflict I besieged [and] conquered the city. I felled 3,000 of their fighting
men with the sword … I captured many troops alive: I cut off of some their arms [and]
hands; I cut off of others their noses, ears, [and] extremities. I gouged out the eyes of
many troops. I made one pile of the living [and] one of heads. I hung their heads on trees
around the city.” †
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f4af/bb82f1b7920fa9444e29eb128bd13832cd46.pdf
How cruel were the New Assyrian Kings? What were there reasons? And finally, what were the effects of such cruelty they exemplified?
Many Kings of Assyrian had displayed proudly their cruelty towards their enemies. Sometimes in reliefs or in their annals, New Assyrian gave detail of their gory exploits against their opponents. King Ashurnasirpal laid out many of his sadistic activities in one of his annals. He liked burning, skinning, and decapitating his enemies. When he defeated a rebelling city, he made sure they pay a huge price. Disobedient cities were destroyed and razed to the ground with fire, with their wealth and all material riches taken by the king. Their youth and women were either burned alive or made into slaves or placed into the harem. In the City of Nistun, Ashurnasirpal showed how he cut of the heads of 260 rebelling soldiers and piled it together. Their leader named Bubu suffered horrific punishment. He was flayed and his skin was placed in the walls of Arbail. In the city of Suri, rebelling nobles were also skinned and were displayed like trophies. Some skin were left to rot but some were placed in a stake. Officials of the city suffered decapitation of their limbs. The leader of the Suri rebellion, Ahiyababa, underwent flaying and his skin was then placed in the walls of Niniveh. After Ashurnasirpal defeated the city of Tila, he ordered to cut the hands and feet of the soldiers of the fallen city. Other than that, some soldiers found themselves without noses and ears. But also, many defeated soldiers had their eyes gouged out. The heads of the leaders of the Tila were hang in the trees around the city.
Ashurnasirpal was not alone in having a psychotic mind. Many of his successors followed his brutality towards enemies. Shalmaneser III had 20,500 enemy soldiers killed by arrow fire. Rebelling cities were “dug up” and burned with fire. Usually, surrounding towns of the unlucky city also suffered the same fate. Shalmaneser III also illustrated in his relief and carvings how he burned the children of defeated cities. Moreover, he ordered the beheading of the soldiers of disloyal cities and made a pyramid from the heads at the gates of the defeated cities. One time, after he defeated the rebelling city of Arzaskhu, he fastened people alive in the pyramids of heads alongside with pole, which had also alive captured soldiers dangling.
https://searchinginhistory.blogspot.com/2015/02/cruelty-instrument-of-assyrian-control.html All that verbiage. Impressive. Is there a point? Yup it was noted at the outset--where is the moral outrage over the Assyrian gods--no one even takes them seriously today but here we are debating the Bible. This debate itself is proof that Bible stands well above all other attempts by BC man to formulate morals, religion, irreligion, philosophy or skepticism. If that is your point, how is it germane to the discussion of our perception of God's inconsistent morality?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,999
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,999 |
TS
When did you last sleep? You seem to be doddering more than usual.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
Whoa!
What you just said is: man was able to derail God's Original Perfect Plan pretty much at the very onset. Does not say much about where God got his omniscience. It should not come as a surprise that God sovereignly chose to let man be responsible for the world into which they were placed ... if you read the book.
Last edited by Thunderstick; 07/10/19.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
Yup it was noted at the outset--where is the moral outrage over the Assyrian gods--no one even takes them seriously today but here we are debating the Bible. This debate itself is proof that Bible stands well above all other attempts by BC man to formulate morals, religion, irreligion, philosophy or skepticism. If that is your point, how is it germane to the discussion of our perception of God's inconsistent morality? That wasn't the original point. You guys were expressing moral outrage over the moral behavior of God and Israel--I was pointing out that other nations were worse and yet you showed no moral outrage. It simply verifies your prejudice and unwillingness to consistently evaluate everything on the basis of those times.
Last edited by Thunderstick; 07/10/19.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
TS
When did you last sleep? You seem to be doddering more than usual. I do yawn sometimes when I see another worn out baseless argument employed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,999
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,999 |
Whoa!
What you just said is: man was able to derail God's Original Perfect Plan pretty much at the very onset. Does not say much about where God got his omniscience. It should not come as a surprise that God sovereignly chose to let man be responsible for the world into which they were placed ... . So God made a perfect plan, then let man muck it up. God then had to go to a really convoluted Plan B. Your God is reminiscent of the Greek god, Zeus.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
So are you acknowledging that you are good at mucking things up?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,999
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,999 |
TS
When did you last sleep? You seem to be doddering more than usual. I do yawn sometimes when I see another worn out baseless argument employed. Yet you persist. Soldier on dude.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,999
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,999 |
So are you acknowledging that you are good at mucking things up? Going ad hominem?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,999
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,999 |
Yup it was noted at the outset--where is the moral outrage over the Assyrian gods--no one even takes them seriously today but here we are debating the Bible. This debate itself is proof that Bible stands well above all other attempts by BC man to formulate morals, religion, irreligion, philosophy or skepticism. If that is your point, how is it germane to the discussion of our perception of God's inconsistent morality? That wasn't the original point. You guys were expressing moral outrage over the moral behavior of God and Israel--I was pointing out that other nations were worse and yet you showed no moral outrage. It simply verifies your prejudice and unwillingness to consistently evaluate everything on the basis of those times. So you tossed out a red herring?
|
|
|
|
|
329 members (257 mag, 1badf350, 160user, 260Remguy, 06hunter59, 257 roberts, 32 invisible),
2,068
guests, and
1,081
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,194,328
Posts18,526,547
Members74,031
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
