bfniii

should it?

it's also the consequence of an eternal choice.

bfniii

i recall asking for what people would consider rebuttal of that charge, but i don't recall claiming there are none.

heh. they waffle on what they believe and when it's quoted, it's misrepresentation or quote mining.

they weren't rhetorical nor were they pointless. other than asking questions, what would you have me do?

evolution (of the micro variety) i don't have a problem with. common descent is another issue.

there is no avoidance. creationism and evolution have incompatible goals. they aren't mutually exclusive.

i did not simply ignore anything. there is more than one theory for biblical dating of the flood. in regards to "proof" of the flood, i quote the smithsonian institute: "In short, it is impossible to verify the actual events recorded in the Biblical account of the flood."

look. we don't have to start another thread. i have been asking you again and again for your thoughts to be posted in this thread. the topic is relevant to the title of the thread. why do you keep grandstanding?

Jack the Bodiless

I will assume that this is an attempt at humor.
So, the alternative to evasion is fantasy?

No, Nebuchadnezzar FAILED to perform any of the actions described in Ezekiel 26:7-11, except the first two. That's WHY he failed to take Tyre: he couldn't breach the fortress and get his army inside.

Historical sources confirm that the siege failed: heck, even the Bible does. Can YOU quote a historical source for your belief that he DID do these things? This is YOUR fantasy, not mine!
Yes, "Tyre" could refer to either the physical city or the population. We have exactly the same usage in English: when historians say that "Japan surrendered" at the end of WW2, they're not saying that the physical island chain surrendered: geological formations don't surrender.

But I will again note your failure to meet my challenge. Perhaps I should make it clearer: PROVIDE a rewrite of Ezekiel 26:7-11, with "you" replaced, and see if it makes sense.

"You" has daughter villages, walls, towers, gates, streets.
It isn't described in the SPECIFIC VERSES that you have been EVADING for so long.
Again, is this an attempt at humor?

It has taken a long time to get YOU to realize that I have never claimed otherwise!
But that's the way it IS! If I commit a crime and don't get caught by the police: nothing happens in this life!
Your belief that Caanan was punished for previous wrongdoing is unsupported by the text. That's the whole point, there ARE no verses!

You are not only ignoring the context, you are ALSO ignoring other Biblical verses (already given) which specifically describe the punishment of people for the crimes of their forebears as a general principle (actively inflicting punishment on children for a specific number of generations).
The analogy fails because the treatment IS desired by all involved: the pain is an unavoidable side-effect (and if the doctor was omnipotent, he'd make it painless), but the treatment is DESIRED.

70,000 people desired to be killed by God? David desired this also?
"Justice" is a human word in the English language. God did not invent it. It has a specific meaning that humans have ascribed to it: and that meaning does not cover God's stated actions in the Bible. But I note that you are again suggesting "special rules" for God.
I doubt that you will find any more, the SAB is fairly comprehensive.
No, there is no indication of this. According to the Bible, at least some of the suffering and injustice was inflicted by God.
No, I'm merely pointing out that God is actively evil, deliberately punishing people for the actions of others, not just sitting back and passively letting the children suffer natural consequences (which would be reprehensible enough in itself). But, again, you seem to be conceding the larger point: that God is amoral (at best). It follows that humans cannot describe God as "good", "just", "merciful" etc.
Yes, we have covered God's amorality already. But you're still skipping the part where Smith's lawyer had to claim that Smith LIED about his motive: just as apologists require the Bible to lie about God's.
You are getting your responses mixed up again. I'm NOT referring to the "no" list, but to your attempts to justify God's actions in apparently punishing people for the actions of others by claiming that the victims themselves deserved it.
Need I remind you of all the occasions when you tried to drag in "God is just" verses?
I have not "backpeddled", my claim has not changed, and you have not refuted it.
And I have already pointed out that you are wrong, Leviticus does NOT describe people who VOLUNTEERED, they were "devoted to God" BY OTHERS, and it says that ALL humans "devoted to God" (which would include the firstborn) MUST be put to death. You are also continuing to ignore the OTHER evidence that this happened.
...FINALLY!
Yes, you do. But first, you have a LOT of learning to do. I cannot give you the equivalent of many years of education in a few paragraphs.
Is English not your first language?

It is the ONLY STATED REASON. That is simply a statement of fact, and you'd know this if you were familiar with Genesis. No other reason is STATED.
How about "crackpots claim that Ezekiel was a true prophet"? You have the relevant Biblical quotes.
No, YOU brought up the subject of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are entirely IRRELEVANT to this discussion.

Have you entirely forgotten how this Daniel topic got started? I mentioned it as an example of something accepted by mainstream scholars that fundamentalists nevertheless reject. You tried to argue that it was NOT generally accepted, and I proved you wrong with the Encyclopaedia Britannica article, which presented this as the accepted view.

That should have settled the matter. But you responded with a claim that the fundamentalists had been "vindicated", and then failed to provide a vindication: something that would indicate an earlier date for Daniel.

The "canonization period" is an example of muddled thinking. With NO EVIDENCE for such a requirement, plus knowledge that the Dead Sea Scrolls were NOT limited to "canonical" religious texts ANYHOW: I can simply ignore it.

On the "Messianic prophecies" issue, I have made my position on this clear, and I will do so again:

FIRSTLY, this thread is TOO BIG, and hopelessly mixed-up already, as demonstrated by YOUR errors in matching the correct responses to each topic. The introduction of a new, wide-ranging topic like this would need a SEPARATE THREAD. That is the RIGHT WAY to handle it.

SECONDLY, I have already given you two reasons why I am reluctant to START such a thread: copyright issues in quoting extensively from the "Jews for Judaism site", and your own repeatedly-demonstrated dishonesty and general lack of integrity. I am reluctant to be the one responsible for starting another thread full of this. However, if YOU start such a thread, I WILL join you there.
Well, gosh. I wonder why the overwhelming majority of Jews, including many who study their holy writings intensively, and have been doing so for two thousand years, are more likely to be correct in THEIR interpretation of THEIR holy books than the followers of another religion, whose first followers were supposedly fishermen and other non-scholars, and which has since drawn almost all of its followers from people who were never Jews in the first place, and which has failed to make any significant inroads into Judaism for two thousand years?

Gosh, that's a tough one.
WHY? Well, because they just DO, of course!

Evasion noted.

Now, do you ACTUALLY want to debate this, and would you actually be able to come up with REAL ANSWERS if we did?
YOU insulted historians and archaeologists by claiming that fundamentalists "study history and archaeology". This is rather like claiming that flat-Earthers "study navigation and astrophysics". But I note that you're still trying to blame me for THE RULES OF THIS FORUM, in which E/C topics BELONG in the E/C area: and, in any case, there is NO WAY that you could cope with a further broadening of THIS thread anyhow.
ANOTHER evasion!
...And Moses did too?
Gosh, so that IS your position! They weren't supernatural at all, and Moses was faking too!
Again, it seems that YOU need to educate yourself on what scholars have to say regarding the polytheistic history of Judaism: and you won't find THAT in the Bible itself.
Biblical creationism is incompatible with the EVIDENCE. It would be false even if evolution was ALSO false. That's what you failed to address.
There's an "alternative theory" to reading what the Bible plainly states? Well, I guess I shouldn't be surprised by that anymore!

And, of course, the Smithsonian is correct: verification is "impossible", because the Flood never happened.

Sven

We (he) do this because it's the obvious way to do it: Use words as they are defined in our language. So you essentially agree that god isn't "human-just" ("God is unjust but you are using human standards"), one has to use a different standard: He is "god-just". Problem is, this "god-just" disagrees with "human just" again and again. That's why we don't call god "just". It gets worse:

If he uses injustice for good things, it would actually not be injustice, but justice, no? See, "god-just" apparently often is indistinguishable from "human-unjust". That's why we don't call god "just": "god-just" is just as
meaningless as "kjsdgfsdgf". Whatever god does, you call it "just", the word looses every meaning.

I wonder why this "university professor" did even bother with this, since the story never happened. Did he also write a book on how Gandalf's magic can be explained by extraordinary timing with respect to natural causes?

The Smithsonian certainly had in mind that this is impossible because the flood simply did not happen. But you apparently take this to mean that even if the flood happened, it would not be possible to verify this today in the real world, one just has to take the bible's word for it. Please correct me if I misunderstood you.

Assumed I got you right, why do you think so, although archeologists have no problem at all with identifying minor floods of the past? Don't you think a major flood leaves more evidence than a minor one, not less?

Jack the Bodiless

Another point that's probably worth mentioning, regarding Tyre:

Alexander did not overthrow the nation-state of Tyre. Nobody did. About two centuries previously, Tyre had already been peacefully absorbed into the Persian Empire.

All that Alexander achieved was the temporary sacking of the city, which was rebuilt.

John A. Broussard

I simply don't understand your answers. Would you care to explain. Maybe if I phrase them as questions, that will help. Let's start with a simple one.

Does hell matter to an individual once they've become a christian?

Thank you.

bfniii

even though the first statement is worded differently, that doesn't mean that He didn't want them to eat the fruit. just because you tell someone they have an option doesn't mean you want them to choose that option.

not necessarily. as i said, sometimes teachers will allow a student to do something the wrong way so that they will know that it is the wrong way. they may even say "don't do it". this gives the student a moral frame of reference. adam and eve knew what it was like before they sinned. once they sinned and got thrown out of the garden of eden, it is highly likely that the difference became extremely real to them.

the problem here is that speculating on God's volition from that one small phrase is not going to give us an accurate picture of God's overall plan. again, He might have meant for adam and eve to not eat the fruit in the short term, but in the long term He can certainly use that for ultimate good.

God is in a no-lose scenario here. apparently He created us to have a personal relationship with Him, hence the potential for freewill. if adam and even choose not to eat of the fruit, then they have exercised their freewill against temptation and freely chosen God's way. God gets what He wants. if they succomb to temptation and disobey, God merely continues with the plan to allow freewill to see who will ultimately choose to be with Him whether that is in an old covenant context or new covenant.

again, that is not true. it is possible that He could have phrased it that way and still not wanted them to choose that option. the sentence does not give a clear and explicit insight into His volition.

the important issue here is that i said God could have prevented it if He wanted to. that doesn't negate freewill. freewill is not negated because God has the ability to use the fall for ultimate good.

the problem is in trying to pin God down to one desire when He is most likely aware of at least two outcomes for the original temptation. as i said, regardless of the outcome, His volition is fulfilled. either case involves our conscious choice and His reception of a willing participant.

as i said, i believe your representation of the narrative is a case of excluded middle. or at least an excluded option.

whether God gets what He wants is irrelevant to the fact that satan precipitated their disobedience. that's why.

if you exclude possible options that are open for God to exercise, then you might have a point.

it has been discussed several times in this thread that God can use pain and even injustice in this life for ultimate good. the question is why you feel the paradigm of this existence should be different. apparently you feel God should not be allowed to do so. care to elaborate?

i have posted here. just added some new ones.

bfniii

you make the smuggled in assumption that God is breaking some promise or doing something unjust. where does this assumption originate?

Johnny Skeptic

I have your answer for you. Christians maintain that God is good, but what is their definition of good as it applies to God? They will have to agree that many of God’s actions and allowances “are not� compatible with current human legal standards and standards of social decency.

Regarding God’s actions, the Old Testament provides sufficient evidence that on many occasions, God’s actions were not in accordance with current legal standards and standards of social decency. Even in the New Testament it is implied that he killed Ananias and Sapphira, reference Acts chapter 5. At issue was money from the sale of a piece of land that Ananias and Sapphira had promised to give the church. They withheld part of the money and were killed because had broken their promise. As a result, Acts 5:11 says “And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.� Fear of what? Breaking a promise to give money to the church? It is much too much of a coincidence that money was involved.

In the NIV, 1 Corinthians 5:1 says “It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans.� There is no mention that God killed any of those people, or even that he threatened to kill them if they did not change their ways. Ananias and Sapphira were only two people, so their actions would not have discredited the church to any great extent. However, “Among you� in 1 Corinthians 5:1 indicates a good deal more than just two people. Surely “sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans� warranted equal punishment to the punishment received by Ananias and Saphira.

Regarding God’s allowances, how about the Bubonic Plague and the recent tsunami in Asia? Did the plague and the tsunami benefit anyone in any way? Of course not. Did the plague and the tsunami benefit God is any way? Of course not.

It seems to me that Christians must claim that whatever God does defines what is good as it applies to his conduct, even when his conduct is contrary to current legal standards and standards of social decency. Why don’t Christians question God’s conduct? That’s easy. Revelation 21:4 says “And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.� Truly, as far as Christians and other religious minded people are concerned, all roads lead to eternal comfort, and if an extra-terrestrial being one day provides eternal comfort for some people, to them his identity would be of no importance whatsoever.

Historically, the vast majority of humans have always had a penchant for dreaming up all sorts of religions in order to satisfy their desire for a comfortable eternal life. This desire has caused many people to defend religions that are much more unbelievable than Christianity is, clearly testifying to the human desire of obtaining eternal comfort.

No disrespect intended, but Christians are just like trained seals looking for a reward of fish from their trainers. Seals in the wild with abundant food supplies would never be interested in performing tricks for humans. If humans were able to achieve obtaining a completely comfortable life at this time that indicated to them that it would be eternally comfortable, I am quite certain that only a relative handful of people would be interested in religion.

Although Christians vigorously defend the claim that Jesus rose from the dead, the claim is definitely incidental to their desire of obtaining a comfortable eternal life. Eternal comfort is the desired goal, not so much how it is obtained. Any of a number of means of obtaining it would be deemed equally acceptable.

Believe it or not, readers, some Christians claim that if God sends them to hell, it is his right to do so. That is easy for them to say now since they believe that they will go to heaven, but if it turns out that they are wrong and that God will send them to hell, I believe that it is reasonable to assume that if they believed that they had the ability to prevent God from sending them to hell, most if not all of them would attempt to do so. Perhaps help could come from the God of another dimension whose conduct “is� in accordance with current legal standards and standards of social decency. Scientists tell us that there are other dimensions.

The question needs to be asked, "Would Jesus appearing to 10,000 people with disparate world views instead of appearing to 500 of “the brethren,� reference 1 Corinthians 15:6, have helped the spread of Christianity, hindered the spread of Christianity, or not made any difference at all? Obviously, the first choice is the best answer. If Christianity is true, if choice number one had actually been the case, a lot more people would end up in heaven and a lot less people would end up in hell.

Regarding miracle healings, today, millions of Christians disagree as to what constitutes a miracle healing. There are not any good reasons at all for anyone to believe that it was any different back then.

Regarding the feeding of the 5,000, which is mentioned in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, Christians have some problems. Consider the following:

1 - The texts claim that the disciples were aware of the miracle, but no mention is made that the crowd was aware of the miracle.

2 - The anonymous Gospel writers did not claim that they personally witnessed the miracle.

3 - The Gospel writers did not reveal their source(s), which might very well have been third hand or fourth hand.

4 - There is no evidence when the claim was first made.

5 - There is no evidence that the claim was widely accepted.

We have only the Bible writers’ word for it that God is good. That simply will not do. Hearsay testimony has little credibility in court trials. How much more so should we not trust human proxies claiming to speak for God?

Jack the Bodiless

I didn't say he was "breaking a promise", but OBVIOUSLY is is doing something unjust. Can you justify God's action in punishing ALL serpents, forever, for something THEY did not do? You must resort to the "bfniii principle": God is an amoral monster that we're "not allowed to judge".

Going back a little:
It gets even worse if you imagine that Satan is responsible, and merely "took the form" of a serpent (a much later Christian apologetic that is entirely unsupported in Genesis). If I carried out a crime while using a fake passport identifying me as your brother, and the authorities find out: would they be justified in punishing every future descendant of yours forever by surgical removal of their limbs?

Perhaps you would. Perhaps you think this is "justice". But that's a very strange attitude to take.