|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
Where in the Bible does the Bible describe God as cruel and vindictive? Are you inserting your own morals into the way you assess God? This is cruel and vindictive by your own moral standard which you said you would not use. God is not done punishing sin in this world and you can call it whatever you please. His attributes will all be expressed in harmony which includes His holiness, justice, wrath against sin, along with the love and mercy. God is not only loving and merciful He also is expressive of wrath, justice, and holiness.
''Ye shall know them by their fruits. ... By their fruits you will know them'' - God ordering the massacre of women and children is a cruel and vicious act, ordering the killing of a man gathering sticks on a Sabbath is a cruel and unjust act.....behaviour that is not related to the given descriptions of a God of Love. 'Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.' " 1 Samuel 15:3 "Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us / He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." Psalm 137 “Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18) God "visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children's children to the third and fourth generation." Exodus 34:7 Cruel and unusual punishments for those guilty of no crime but the so called sins of their ancestors. The OT does not describe a God of Love; "God is love." - 1 John 4:8 1 Corinthians 13; Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.'' Good Lord! It is even worse than I thought. Some of you guys just flunked Bible studies. "Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us / He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." Psalm 137 It is true that Christ taught a better way...but there lays one of the contradictions. Do not tell me that it isn’t there... There is a difference between the testaments--a clear difference but there is not contradiction--because the OT prophesied that Christ would come and establish a New Covenant and the New Testament indicates where things have changed. If both testaments are saying there was a change there is no contradiction. You are guys are too desperate to find contradictions and it's showing. That's neither an explanation or a valid argument.....try to focus on the proposition that we are talking about a timeless God with timeless values, which means that It's not OK to kill someone for a minor transgression at any time or place..just because ancient people had hard lives and were cruel is not an excuse for God to be portrayed in the same way, no better than the people of the time. Unless of course we create our gods in our own image. Which, given the NT facelift, appears to be the case. God never said His laws for man would never change--He said they would therefore you basic assumption is false.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,650
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,650 |
I would not. But the Patriarchs of the OT would.
In that post, I simply offered to you, their rationalization.
I wrote of what I was taught. I did not speak therein of what I believe. Just for the sake of argument, you would not kill your child for breaking the Sabbath, gathering toys, sticks or whatever, and neither would any reasonable human being in this day and age. Which appears to make us as human beings more reasonable, more caring, more considerate than the God of the bible as described in these verses....a God, a Being, that is supposed to be the ultimate in love, compassoon and mercy is surpassed by His creatures. I'll put it this way. if I were a pioneer trying to raise a family in the wilderness, without the recourse of modern legal and medical intervention and I had one bad child making attempts to kill his siblings........Yes, I would put him down. False analogy....The stick gatherer was not out to kill anyone. He probably just needed more wood for his fire, to feed his family. For which he was not forgiven or chastised, but killed.. .let those without sin cast the first stone!!?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
I would not. But the Patriarchs of the OT would.
In that post, I simply offered to you, their rationalization.
I wrote of what I was taught. I did not speak therein of what I believe. Just for the sake of argument, you would not kill your child for breaking the Sabbath, gathering toys, sticks or whatever, and neither would any reasonable human being in this day and age. Which appears to make us as human beings more reasonable, more caring, more considerate than the God of the bible as described in these verses....a God, a Being, that is supposed to be the ultimate in love, compassoon and mercy is surpassed by His creatures. I'll put it this way. if I were a pioneer trying to raise a family in the wilderness, without the recourse of modern legal and medical intervention and I had one bad child making attempts to kill his siblings........Yes, I would put him down. False analogy....The stick gatherer was not out to kill anyone. He probably just needed more wood for his fire, to feed his family. For which he was not forgiven or chastised, but killed.. .let those without sin cast the first stone!!? Please provide the proof that he "needed" to do this for the good of his family. If so why would he not ask if anyone could help his family rather than doing something for which he knew there was a death penalty. A loving father would not put his family at risk in this way. You feel the need to read into the text in order to avoid what is stated and make an emotional argument. You proposed as a logical contradiction, if it truly was that, you could prove it without making these speculative statements.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,650
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,650 |
God never said His laws for man would never change--He said they would therefore you basic assumption is false.
This debate has absolutely nothing to do with 'God's laws for man'
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 25,923 Likes: 2
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 25,923 Likes: 2 |
I would not. But the Patriarchs of the OT would.
In that post, I simply offered to you, their rationalization.
I wrote of what I was taught. I did not speak therein of what I believe. Just for the sake of argument, you would not kill your child for breaking the Sabbath, gathering toys, sticks or whatever, and neither would any reasonable human being in this day and age. Which appears to make us as human beings more reasonable, more caring, more considerate than the God of the bible as described in these verses....a God, a Being, that is supposed to be the ultimate in love, compassoon and mercy is surpassed by His creatures. I'll put it this way. if I were a pioneer trying to raise a family in the wilderness, without the recourse of modern legal and medical intervention and I had one bad child making attempts to kill his siblings........Yes, I would put him down. I would not. But the Patriarchs of the OT would.
In that post, I simply offered to you, their rationalization.
I wrote of what I was taught. I did not speak therein of what I believe. According to the stick gathering account it was God himself who ordered the killing. The patriarchs were not certain what to do From whose mouth did the congregation hear the order to kill the law breaker? Does anyone really believe the order was delivered by a voice from the heavens? Or was the order delivered by a priest who claimed to be speaking for God? As to my personal belief......the swamp did not spring into existence this decade, or this century, or this millennium. The swamp has existed since men first started gathering together into caves for protection and since men started building clusters of huts and calling them villages. And the swamp certainly existed in the early Hebrew Priesthood. That priesthood was made of men corrupted by their power over other men, corrupted by their ability to extort tithes and offerings from other men, corrupted by the absolute power of life and death over their subjects, just like any other ruler of their day. And these are the men who remembered and interpreted and repeated the oral traditions for centuries until the tools were available to record those stories on paper or parchment or hides or clay tablets.
People who choose to brew up their own storms bitch loudest about the rain.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,650
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,650 |
I would not. But the Patriarchs of the OT would.
In that post, I simply offered to you, their rationalization.
I wrote of what I was taught. I did not speak therein of what I believe. Just for the sake of argument, you would not kill your child for breaking the Sabbath, gathering toys, sticks or whatever, and neither would any reasonable human being in this day and age. Which appears to make us as human beings more reasonable, more caring, more considerate than the God of the bible as described in these verses....a God, a Being, that is supposed to be the ultimate in love, compassoon and mercy is surpassed by His creatures. I'll put it this way. if I were a pioneer trying to raise a family in the wilderness, without the recourse of modern legal and medical intervention and I had one bad child making attempts to kill his siblings........Yes, I would put him down. False analogy....The stick gatherer was not out to kill anyone. He probably just needed more wood for his fire, to feed his family. For which he was not forgiven or chastised, but killed.. .let those without sin cast the first stone!!? Please provide the proof that he "needed" to do this for the good of his family. If so why would he not ask if anyone could help his family rather than doing something for which he knew there was a death penalty. A loving father would not put his family at risk in this way. You feel the need to read into the text in order to avoid what is stated and make an emotional argument. You proposed as a logical contradiction, if it truly was that, you could prove it without making these speculative statements. A person normally gathers wood because wood is needed. Which makes it a fair assumption that the man was gathering sticks because he needed sticks for his fire.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
God never said His laws for man would never change--He said they would therefore you basic assumption is false.
This debate has absolutely nothing to do with 'God's laws for man' You are trying to show discrepancies between verses in the OT and NT and there is a different covenant in place. If that has no bearing in the debate then you must be debating with yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
A person normally gathers wood because wood is needed. Which makes it a fair assumption that the man was gathering sticks because he needed sticks for his fire. This was not a "normal" case. It did not happen on a regular basis therefore your normal assumption for motive is erroneous.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,650
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,650 |
I would not. But the Patriarchs of the OT would.
In that post, I simply offered to you, their rationalization.
I wrote of what I was taught. I did not speak therein of what I believe. Just for the sake of argument, you would not kill your child for breaking the Sabbath, gathering toys, sticks or whatever, and neither would any reasonable human being in this day and age. Which appears to make us as human beings more reasonable, more caring, more considerate than the God of the bible as described in these verses....a God, a Being, that is supposed to be the ultimate in love, compassoon and mercy is surpassed by His creatures. I'll put it this way. if I were a pioneer trying to raise a family in the wilderness, without the recourse of modern legal and medical intervention and I had one bad child making attempts to kill his siblings........Yes, I would put him down. I would not. But the Patriarchs of the OT would.
In that post, I simply offered to you, their rationalization.
I wrote of what I was taught. I did not speak therein of what I believe. According to the stick gathering account it was God himself who ordered the killing. The patriarchs were not certain what to do From whose mouth did the congregation hear the order to kill the law breaker? Does anyone really believe the order was delivered by a voice from the heavens? Or was the order delivered by a priest who claimed to be speaking for God? As to my personal belief......the swamp did not spring into existence this decade, or this century, or this millennium. The swamp has existed since men first started gathering together into caves for protection and since men started building clusters of huts and calling them villages. And the swamp certainly existed in the early Hebrew Priesthood. That priesthood was made of men corrupted by their power over other men, corrupted by their ability to extort tithes and offerings from other men, corrupted by the absolute power of life and death over their subjects, just like any other ruler of their day. And these are the men who remembered and interpreted and repeated the oral traditions for centuries until the tools were available to record those stories on paper or parchment or hides or clay tablets. As far as it's known, nobody has ever heard anything from any God, not in the history of the world. Everything we have comes from those who claim to be the representatives of this or that God. Never God himself, openly and honestly interacting with us. There lies the problem.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,650
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,650 |
A person normally gathers wood because wood is needed. Which makes it a fair assumption that the man was gathering sticks because he needed sticks for his fire. This was not a "normal" case. It did not happen on a regular basis therefore your normal assumption for motive is erroneous. How do you know the rate. You are making that assumption.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 25,923 Likes: 2
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 25,923 Likes: 2 |
[
False analogy....The stick gatherer was not out to kill anyone. He probably just needed more wood for his fire, to feed his family. For which he was not forgiven or chastised, but killed..
.let those without sin cast the first stone!!?
Actually, what the stick gatherer was doing, was challenging the authority of the priesthood. (the governing body in a theocracy) Tantamount to treason in any modern society, and a crime often punishable by death.
People who choose to brew up their own storms bitch loudest about the rain.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,650
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,650 |
[
False analogy....The stick gatherer was not out to kill anyone. He probably just needed more wood for his fire, to feed his family. For which he was not forgiven or chastised, but killed..
.let those without sin cast the first stone!!?
Actually, what the stick gatherer was doing, was challenging the authority of the priesthood. (the governing body in a theocracy) Tantamount to treason in any modern society, and a crime often punishable by death. The priesthood did not know what to do, perhaps they would have been lenient. As the narrative goes, it was God who ordered his death by stoning....and that is the issue. The issue is not with the priesthood, or the governing authority, or people, but the contradictory descriptions of God, a cruel vindictive, unforgiving Tyrant versus a God of Love, always forgiving, good to all, merciful....two completely opposing sets of attributes.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 25,923 Likes: 2
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 25,923 Likes: 2 |
Point being, God never put pen to paper. Everything in the Bible came through the hand of Man.
And over the course of five millenia, man's interpretation of God evolved.
Even over just the last two thousand years, Man's interpretation of Christ has evolved to the point that the Church of 150 AD would not even recognize that which is taught today. Compare the teachings of any sect through the dark ages, compare the teachings of "The Church" through the Crusades and the inquisition to the forgiving, all inclusive, sodomite loving God presented today.
People claim, "Those were not real Christians."
But they were the only Christians extant at the time.
So, who is wrong in their interpretation of scripture, and of God?
Or, has God evolved as the priesthood has seen fit to maximize the size of their congregations, and keep the offering plate filled, as well as the priest's bellies.
People who choose to brew up their own storms bitch loudest about the rain.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,650
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,650 |
Point being, God never put pen to paper. Everything in the Bible came through the hand of Man.
And over the course of five millenia, man's interpretation of God evolved.
Even over just the last two thousand years, Man's interpretation of Christ has evolved to the point that the Church of 150 AD would not even recognize that which is taught today. Compare the teachings of any sect through the dark ages, compare the teachings of "The Church" through the Crusades and the inquisition to the forgiving, all inclusive, sodomite loving God presented today.
People claim, "Those were not real Christians."
But they were the only Christians extant at the time.
So, who is wrong in their interpretation of scripture, and of God?
Or, has God evolved as the priesthood has seen fit to maximize the size of their congregations, and keep the offering plate filled, as well as the priest's bellies. Well, Christianity quickly splintered in numerous versions and offshoots. Adoptionism, Arianism, Docetism, Ebionites, Gnosticism, etc, etc.....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,097
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,097 |
The priesthood did not know what to do, perhaps they would have been lenient..... it was God who ordered his death by stoning...
conditions being in the wilderness, one might think there would be some leniency toward the offender.... keeping in mind Those Israelites who set out to gather manna on the sabbath were simply told to return to their tents...this despite Exodus 16 saying they were not even permitted to leave their dwellings on the sabbath,( to do so would be deemed a capital offence.) So the Lord seems arbitrary in measuring out penalties. now fast forward to the disciples of Jesus who were harvesting heads of grain on the sabbath, and Jesus defends their actions.
-Bulletproof and Waterproof don't mean Idiotproof.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,650
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,650 |
The priesthood did not know what to do, perhaps they would have been lenient..... it was God who ordered his death by stoning...
conditions being in the wilderness, one might think there would be some leniency toward the offender.... keeping in mind Those Israelites who set out to gather manna on the sabbath were simply told to return to their tents...this despite Exodus 16 saying they were not even permitted to leave their dwellings on the sabbath,( to do so would be deemed a capital offence.) So the Lord seems arbitrary in measuring out penalties. now fast forward to the disciples of Jesus who were harvesting heads of grain on the sabbath, and Jesus defends their actions. Even worse, the words attributed to Jesus happen to be; ''Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.'' - Matthew 5:17
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
I would not. But the Patriarchs of the OT would.
In that post, I simply offered to you, their rationalization.
I wrote of what I was taught. I did not speak therein of what I believe. Just for the sake of argument, you would not kill your child for breaking the Sabbath, gathering toys, sticks or whatever, and neither would any reasonable human being in this day and age. Which appears to make us as human beings more reasonable, more caring, more considerate than the God of the bible as described in these verses....a God, a Being, that is supposed to be the ultimate in love, compassoon and mercy is surpassed by His creatures. I'll put it this way. if I were a pioneer trying to raise a family in the wilderness, without the recourse of modern legal and medical intervention and I had one bad child making attempts to kill his siblings........Yes, I would put him down. I would not. But the Patriarchs of the OT would.
In that post, I simply offered to you, their rationalization.
I wrote of what I was taught. I did not speak therein of what I believe. According to the stick gathering account it was God himself who ordered the killing. The patriarchs were not certain what to do From whose mouth did the congregation hear the order to kill the law breaker? Does anyone really believe the order was delivered by a voice from the heavens? Or was the order delivered by a priest who claimed to be speaking for God? As to my personal belief......the swamp did not spring into existence this decade, or this century, or this millennium. The swamp has existed since men first started gathering together into caves for protection and since men started building clusters of huts and calling them villages. And the swamp certainly existed in the early Hebrew Priesthood. That priesthood was made of men corrupted by their power over other men, corrupted by their ability to extort tithes and offerings from other men, corrupted by the absolute power of life and death over their subjects, just like any other ruler of their day. And these are the men who remembered and interpreted and repeated the oral traditions for centuries until the tools were available to record those stories on paper or parchment or hides or clay tablets. As far as it's known, nobody has ever heard anything from any God, not in the history of the world. Everything we have comes from those who claim to be the representatives of this or that God. Never God himself, openly and honestly interacting with us. There lies the problem. God spoke the 10 commandments audibly to establish Moses as His spokesperson. The congregation also asked that God would speak through Moses. Jesus came in humanity to bring the gospel. God does not speak His inspired word to each individual otherwise we would have numerous contradictory claims. These would be real and not merely alleged. The prophets of the OT spoke near and far claims to validate them as messengers. Jesus life death and resurrection validated His ministry. He left His apostles to finish it and the door of revelation was closed. The validation of the prophets with their fulfillments is unassailable as well as the testimony. Of Jesus in this world.
Last edited by Thunderstick; 07/14/19.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
A person normally gathers wood because wood is needed. Which makes it a fair assumption that the man was gathering sticks because he needed sticks for his fire. This was not a "normal" case. It did not happen on a regular basis therefore your normal assumption for motive is erroneous. How do you know the rate. You are making that assumption. Provide another prior example to this case. You are missing the obvious as they would not have brought him to Lord to ask for guidance on the death penalty if they had prior precedent.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
The priesthood did not know what to do, perhaps they would have been lenient..... it was God who ordered his death by stoning...
conditions being in the wilderness, one might think there would be some leniency toward the offender.... keeping in mind Those Israelites who set out to gather manna on the sabbath were simply told to return to their tents...this despite Exodus 16 saying they were not even permitted to leave their dwellings on the sabbath,( to do so would be deemed a capital offence.) So the Lord seems arbitrary in measuring out penalties. now fast forward to the disciples of Jesus who were harvesting heads of grain on the sabbath, and Jesus defends their actions. Even worse, the words attributed to Jesus happen to be; ''Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.'' - Matthew 5:17 By fulfill it means to bring it to completion. When something is fulfilled nothing more needs to be done to satisfy it. His ministry fulfilled the law and its purposes and he began the institution of the gospel which empowered man to do what the law never could. The law could only show sin and give moral guidance it could not change hearts. The gospel changes hearts and accordingly their lives and gives them an understanding of scripture. Until someone honestly and sincerely wants truth and is willing to embrace it the Bible will always be a mystery that they will not accurately interpret because their rejection of truth will not even allow an honest inquiry.
Last edited by Thunderstick; 07/14/19.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,369 |
[
False analogy....The stick gatherer was not out to kill anyone. He probably just needed more wood for his fire, to feed his family. For which he was not forgiven or chastised, but killed..
.let those without sin cast the first stone!!?
Actually, what the stick gatherer was doing, was challenging the authority of the priesthood. (the governing body in a theocracy) Tantamount to treason in any modern society, and a crime often punishable by death. The priesthood did not know what to do, perhaps they would have been lenient. As the narrative goes, it was God who ordered his death by stoning....and that is the issue. The issue is not with the priesthood, or the governing authority, or people, but the contradictory descriptions of God, a cruel vindictive, unforgiving Tyrant versus a God of Love, always forgiving, good to all, merciful....two completely opposing sets of attributes. Read the pertinent passages that I cited--they knew he was guilty of the death penalty and simply asked God for guidance in how it was to be executed. Furthermore by a skeptics own definition of morality God did not exist and therefore spoke to no one so the group consensus made a decision but according to a skeptic's mantra the group consensus establishes morality. So no matter how the skeptic spins this story they have no arguable case.
|
|
|
|
|
294 members (2500HD, 10ring1, 01Foreman400, 12344mag, 160user, 280rem_cm, 27 invisible),
1,846
guests, and
1,096
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,244
Posts18,486,010
Members73,967
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
