bfniii

Again, can God create a paradigm with rules and systems that are completely inherent and intrinsic, but then make the system contravene it's own teleology? It's a self-defeating proposition.

Unfortunately, heaven is not analogous. The first, most obvious reason why is because we have so little information about it whereas we are completely familiar with earth. Second, because we don't exist in both places, we are unable to draw parallel comparisons.

Freewill is exactly the answer you are looking for and what is even better is that it doesn't apply to toddlers or the unborn. God taking someone who can't make choices of their own has nothing to do with freewill.

Only because we have chosen it. Don't forget, we were forewarned. Over and over and over again.

Yup. And taking away that suffering would:
• Take away the aforementioned choice
• Take away a device that God intended to draw people closer to Him.

Gullwind

Where does it say that the Israelites were at war with the Amalekites?

I Samuel 15:2-3 (Samuel speaking to Saul) "Thus says the Lord of hosts, 'I will punish what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way, when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.'"

If they were at war, the biblical account seem to be that the war was of Israels making, in punishment for the actions of the Amalekites four hundred years before. There is no record of any other reasons for attacking them. If you know of one, I would be most interested in learning of it.

And I would say that "utterly destroy all that they have; but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass" certainly sound like actively and deliberately trying to eliminate every single one of them. Or is this another example where it is just "figurative?"

bfniii

1. exodus 17:8-13
2. judges 7:12-25
3. 1 samuel 14:48
4. 1 samuel 27: 8
5. 1 chronicles 4:43

numbers 14:45
judges 3:13

i was pointing out that genocide implies a wanton and casual disregard for the object

John A. Broussard

But we already agreed that the vast majority of human beings (unborn and toddlers) have no choice. So how could god be taking choice away from them?

And,

You are now saying that god wishes to draw people closer to her/him/it but can do so only through causing suffering. Is that correct?

We're narrowing down the issues. I could bring up more from your last post, but these two should keep us busy.

John Kesler

The verses above don't change the fact that 1 Samuel 15 gives a specific justification for the attack:

Additional proof that this war was to avenge an assault from around 400 years before (narrated in Exodus 17 ) is found in verse 6:

The text is clear: the Amalekites were killed because of how they treated Israel during the exodus and the Kenites, warned to leave because of their favorable treatment of Israel.

bfniii

I think we're saying the same thing. Freewill doesn't really apply to those who don't make their own decisions anyway.

That is one way, but certainly not the only way for an omnipotent God.

bfniii

interesting website. i'm not sure where to start. what do you say to someone who can't even grasp that when God says adam will die if he eats from the tree of knowledge, but then lives to an old age, God is referring to the spirit not the flesh. the whole point of the metanarrative is that man is depraved and needs redemption which evidently escaped the website's commentators.

the site appears to be nothing but these simple misinterpretations. is there anything specific from this site that you would like to discuss? i won't live long enough to correct all the christianity 101 mistakes these people are making.

John A. Broussard

OK. We're back to square one. Why does an omnipotent god who has many ways of preventing human suffering without producing other ill effects, continues to allow and apparently to enjoy watching human suffering?

Jack the Bodiless

bfniii:

(r.e. Tyre)
We are familiar with Christian apologists who claim that the Bible is being "misinterpreted" when it doesn't say what they want it to say.

The Tyre prophecy is a failure, not a misinterpretation. It wasn't fulfilled by Nebuchadnezzar, Alexander, or anyone else. Tyre was supposed to be permanently destroyed, erased forever: it wasn't.

On the punishment of innocents for the crimes of others:
So, by God's standards set for humans, God himself is unjust.
No, it isn't. It is a belief held by some of the Bible's authors, but not by others.
No, the Bible repeatedly cites specific actions by God and by his followers, to punish innocent people for the actions of their forebears: these actions are not simply the natural consequences of sin.
You are mistaken. Even today, all Jews are commanded to seek the total extermination of the Amalekites, if some should turn up (Maimonides' Book of Commadments, positive commandment 188, the extinction of Amalek: "Thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek").
No, you are mistaken (again). You are trying to force-fit Genesis to a much later Christian interpretation. Genesis wasn't written by, or for, Christians. It plainly describes a God who lied to Adam and Eve, and then threw them out of Eden, specifically to stop them becoming powerful enough to challenge him.

Adam and Eve: there was no "spiritual death"

They have their own discussion forum, and will correct genuine mistakes. But don't expect them to listen to the baseless excuses of apologists: there would have to be actual evidence that a mistake has been made.

In my experience, Christian fundamentalists are far more likely to make mistakes than either "liberal" Christians or unbelievers, who can simply read what the book says, and set it in the proper context (and for the OT, that's not Christianity).

Sven

A different spin than Jack put on this: If this is the whole point of the metanarrative, why can't we understand all of Genesis 1-3 allegorically?
I mean, as soon as "death" doesn't mean something physical, but rather something "spiritual", why can not the six-day-creation also mean something spiritual rather than something physical?