Doctor X

Quod erat demonstrandum

--J.D.

The AntiChris

Not implying.

Doctor X

He was infering. . . .

--J.D.

Rymmie1981

Sweet Jeebus, Ed, do you read the Bible? If a Christian sins, it is compared to crucifying Christ again. Heb. 6:6

By an OT person sinning, they were sentencing a dove, bullock, etc. to death by immolation, or themselves to death usually by stoning. OT sin was only defined by actions, not intent.

NT sin is defined by not only action, but intent. But, the sin didn''t even require intent. Thinking about something sinful, without the intent to do so, was called sin by Junior. By NT standards, we sin by turning the TV, considering the images that come across the airwaves these days. That sin doesn't put us in any danger because we are forgiven of the sin by what Jeebus did already. What that sin does is put Jeebus back on the cross and put him to open shame. Which would be worse according to everything you know about the Bible?

NT Christians are held to the standard of putting Jeebus on the cross everytime they sin. OT Hebrews are faced with Sheol, or Hades in the greek. The Preacher shows Sheol as having these attributes:

Ecc 9:10 Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do [it] with thy might; for [there is] no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.

Sounds a little bit like nothingness, or oblivion to me. Certainly can't torture a person if they don't know about it happening.

The Uber Cross of Doom once again strikes back at the Christians with their own freaking book. I love my Uber Cross of Doom.

Ed

No, only God can enforce capital punishment for sin, while humans can only enforce it for crimes. So only the murderer would be executed.

Quote:

jtb: That last sentence is pure fiction. God does indeed endorse such behaviors, repeatedly, throughout the Old Testament. Ed: That last sentence is pure fiction. jtb: I have read the Bible, you evidently have not.

You may have read it, but I have studied it in context.

Quote:

jtb: So genocide is a "higher standard" of morality? What a great man Hitler was! He held the German nation to a higher standard than those degenerate democracies! Ed: No, the higher standard was not allowing unbelievers to be a part of the nation. jtb: Just as the "higher standard" of the Nazis was not allowing Jews to be a part of the nation. Ed: No, unbelief is a moral issue, being a jew is not. jtb: Unbelief is not a moral issue. Yes, THEY had a rule which said that it WAS a moral issue, but so did the Nazis: it was "immoral" to allow Jews to remain among the Master Race.

Unbelief is a moral issue because all humans know that the true God exists and deserves their worship so to deny it is being dishonest. Though of course years of denying Him can push this knowledge into the subconscious so that they can actually convince themselves that they do not believe he exists. Also the Nazis belief that allowing jews to live is immoral is just a subjective belief based on their own hatreds while the ancient hebrew belief that unbelief is immoral is based on the objective basis of God's moral character.

Quote:

Ed: Well yes that is because they were preventing them from getting the land God promised them. jtb: No, the massacred children were NOT preventing the Hebrews from getting the land God promised them.

No but their parents were, see above about the children.

Quote:

jtb: Try telling a rape victim that she is in control of the situation because she can choose "not to delight him". Ed: What rape? According to the scripture he was not allowed to humiliate her. jtb: Out of context. He was not supposed to "humble" her by selling her into slavery. But he HAD already "humbled her" (by raping her) anyhow. What part of "because you have humbled her" do you not understand? How does "you have humbled her" become "don't humble her" in your warped understanding of the Bible?

No, see the better translation of Deut. 21:14 in the NASB:

"It shall be, if you are not pleased with her, then you shall let her go wherever she wishes; but you shall certainly not sell her for money, you shall not mistreat her, because you have humbled her. "
New American Standard Bible © 1995 Lockman Foundation

God says that he should not mistreat her, this plainly includes rape. The humbling refers to the killing of her family. There is no rape, try again.

Ed

Sorry you wasted your rant but there is no rape, see my post to Jack above.

DamienVryce

NOTE: While the discussion has moved somewhat beyond Pharaoh directly, as a result of the following quote, it may be worthwhile to return to it. I had intended a brief sidestep that turned into much more, I'll let Ed have the last word on the discussion of this post.
Ed posted: (emphasis mine)

While I generally just lurk here, and while I feel that this particular apologetic has been dealt with more than effectively by many others, it does introduce a testable hypothesis that I’d like to look at and pertains to the discussion on Pharaoh.

Apparently, through years of denying God, we can convince ourselves that we don’t believe in him. I believe my life experience can easily prove this assertion incorrect. I had been a believer all my life. Faith in God was central to my identity and was central to everything that I did. I was constantly involved in religious activities, serving often in capacities that adults usually served in. It was this religious devotion that got me to take a year off from college and volunteer my time on a mission trip. I was respected, well treated, and liked by everyone I worked with, and certainly reciprocated those feelings. I enjoyed working with everyone, and spent most of the first half of my year very fervently worshipping and serving God.

However, as a direct result of this devotion, I had begun studying intensively and scholarly about a year and a half earlier, continuing through my mission trip. It was through this process of sincerely and prayerfully studying the Bible and other religious texts that I came to the understanding that God doesn’t exist. This realization came over a period of months until 2/3 of the way through my mission trip I finally accepted that I didn’t believe in God. Now only 8 months later, while still continuing to study the world around me, I am just as convinced that the Christian God does not exist.

So with that background out the way, here’s my question. Why didn’t it take me years to convince myself? Why was it so much quicker for me? Am I just that persuasive? Let me test my persuasiveness. Ed, there is no God. Are you convinced now? Why did my sincerest attempts to serve God end up leading me away from “Him�? I know that I’m not alone in a similar story, one of the GRD mods, Lanakila also recently deconverted only months ago. What happened to “years of denying Him� there?

Perhaps instead, you should just retract this statement, as it is insulting to the atheists that have honestly and sincerely studied. And the fact that this honest search could be considered immoral is repulsive to me. Further, this idea that disbelief is immoral is intricately tied to the interaction between God and Pharaoh. In general, I agree with Brighid, Doctor X, and Jack the Bodiless that from the way that I read the text, God hardened Pharaoh’s heart from the very beginning and then punished him for it. However, for the sake of argument, lets assume that Pharaoh hardened his own heart.

To draw analogy with my life experiences, as I look back, from the first moment that I began questioning religion in a scholarly way I believe that it was inevitable that I now no longer believe in God. My parents raised me to see to act based on what I believe to be true, rather than what is convenient. Based on the way that I think, and my professional training (I’m an engineer) looking back, I could come to no other conclusion than that God does not exist. Does this count as me “hardening� my heart? If so, then doesn’t God, as my Creator share some of the responsibility? After all, it is primarily the way that I think, analyze concepts, and question that lead to my atheism. Assuming God’s existence, didn’t he give me those faculties? Doesn’t he share in my “immoral disbelief�?

I suppose that I’m saying that I don’t believe that we as humans have unlimited free will. There are always circumstances that prevent a completely free choice. As an example, I related that I’m an engineer. By my own free will, could I wake up today and write a Pulitzer prize winning news article? No, I really couldn’t. Even granting that Pharaoh “hardened� his own heart (which as I said earlier I believe to be un-Biblical), God, as his creator must share some of that responsibility because he created Pharaoh that way. Our decision to believe in God or not is simply not an example of totally free choice.

Also, earlier in the thread (on page 1) referring to Pharaoh learning about the Judaic God:
(Note: you corrected minority to majority later. It has no bearing on this point.)

Learning this much about those that Pharaoh ruled would seem to me to be the mark of a good (or at least intelligent) leader. Even in Pharaoh doesn’t care about his subjects as people, he would at least care to secure his own position.

However, this intelligent leader, who apparently knows about the Judaic God, and what he is capable suddenly becomes stubborn in the face of his position being undermined? No, that doesn’t make any sense. If Pharaoh is as you describe him above and knew about Yahweh would have let the Jews go free after the first plague. Even if Pharaoh did not worship Yahweh, it would only make practical sense.

Thus the plain reading of the text is the interpretation that makes the most sense and we are left with the idea that God hardens Pharaoh’s heart and then punishes him for it, which then of course he allegedly does to all of us unbelievers too as you paralleled with your more recent post.

DamienVryce

Returning to the discussion of rape, referring to Deut. 22:13-29, we can hardly believe that the feelings of the woman are any concern of God. From verse 28-29, if a man rapes a girl, the punishment is to pay money to her father then marry her. Remember that the idea of women’s rights in the Bible are not those of modern day society. Thankfully we’ve become more humane since then.

Also, please consider the timing of what Deut 21:10-14 says. If you’re in combat and take a beautiful woman captive, shave her head, trim her nails, wait a month, then “you may go in to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.� (NASB) ONLY after that, if the man is not happy with her, will she be free. If “to be her husband and she shall be your wife� with someone taken captive is not rape, I don’t know what is. Check any of the other translations, these verses clearly indicate rape, endorsed by the Bible.

Ed

If you have ever spent any time around tiny babies you learn they can be very selfish and even manipulative. And given that for christians the whole bible is one text, it is very relevant.

Quote:

Moi: Of course, all of those children sacrificed did not really do anything either . . . save get born. Ed. No, see above about all humans from their day of birth dx: See above, it remains an ipse dixit uncontained in the texts. Furthermore, to suppose that a deity could declare an infant can deserve this slaughter indicates that the apparent choice is Evil. Will note the acceptance of the references to child sacrifice . . . there is progress. --J.D.

So you believe in the existence of objective evil? If you don't then your comment is meaningless.

Jack the Bodiless

God didn't "enforce" anything. humans massacred the Amalekites, humans perpetrated the Holocaust, and (in my hypothetical example) humans killed all the relatives of the murderer, and everyone else in the town where he grew up, "for their own sins".

It IS exactly the same.
Then why do you keep ignoring the context of Biblical verses?
You think that just saying this makes it true?

I know, from direct personal experience, that this is NOT true.

Romans 1:18-20 proves that God does not exist, and the ancient Hebrews were motivated by their own hatreds.
And what sort of moral depravity allows children to be killed for the "crimes" of their parents?

Christian moral depravity.
"Humbled" means "raped". And it is perfectly obvious from the context that this woman was raped.

Try again.
No amount of denial will ever change this.
Christian moral depravity again: all babies deserve to die.

Ed, why do you continue with this? It's obvious that the Biblical God is evil, and you keep on admitting that the Biblical God is evil, while simultaneously denying it (in defiance of the Bible) in certain specific cases.

It makes no sense that the genocidal, baby-killing butcher of the OT would consider rape to be wrong, and the notion that this being would object to human sacrifice would be laughable even if the Bible DIDN'T contain examples.

Why the inconsistency?