bfniii

1. because we continue to choose the path of suffering. God allows evil only in that he allows our freedom of choice.
2. because of the nature of our universe, evil was/is necessary as an antithesis of good.

what makes you say that He enjoys human suffering?

bfniii

i notice that instead of responding to my previous remarks, you stonewall by repeating your original comment. i also find it interesting that instead of trying to consider a broader perspective on the issue, you become recalcitrant by resorting to a personal level of response.

does repeating your assertion make you feel better about not responding to rebuttal?

is there a reason why you are trying to put God on even footing with His creation by restricting His level of jurisprudence to what is appropriate for us?

care to address my rebuttal instead of stonewalling?

not following you here. some of the bible's authors believe what?

do you have any examples of this other than the ones you provided? the ones you provided are examples of the consequences of sin.

as i stated in another response, genocide implies a casual and wanton disregard for the object which is clearly not the case with the amalekites as pointed out more than once in this thread.

stop right there. what are you basing your comments on? how do you know what time period is allowed to interpret biblical passages? who is to say later (whatever that means) is any less accurate than "earlier"? isn't it possible we will get wiser and thus have a more mature perspective on passages as time moves on?

it wasn't? how do you know?

really? in what way?

goodness. you have totally missed the point. they were thrown out because they were warned that they had boundaries but attempted to cross them anyway.

looks like there were some pretty good responses there too. anyway, i will visit that thread as soon as i get through with this one.

like missing the point of the intial metanarrative in the bible? is my pointing out that they missed the entire, and somewhat obvious, point of the story a baseless excuse?

is that so? your experience (in this thread and the other that i skimmed) and your resource (SAB) seems to sum up to nothing more than stating a misperception and then stonewalling.

bfniii

i don't see why not. not every christian believes that the creation story is literal. the point of that story is that God created the universe. whether the story is literal or figurative is splitting hairs. no matter how things appear to us today, an omnipotent God could have done it that way.

Sven

:huh: IIRC, you were one of those argueing for a six-day creation. But now you've just admitted that there's not really a biblical basis for it.

Jack the Bodiless

bfniii:
But I DID respond to your comments about Tyre. I also addressed YOUR personal attack on those who don't agree with your position: your as-yet-baseless accusation of "misinterpretation".
What rebuttal? "Ezekiel doesn't say Tyre will be ultimately destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar"? Ezekiel doesn't say that Tyre will be ultimately destroyed by somebody else at a later date.

I pointed out that the Tyre prophecy failed. Tyre still exists. I also pointed out that there is no reason whatsoever to believe that Ezekiel was speaking "figuratively", except that this is what apologists want to believe due to the literal failure of the prophecy.
So you claim that "goodness" and "justice" come from God, but that God himself is not good or just?
I am directly addressing your "rebuttal": your baseless claim that "guilt is not transferrable" is a Biblical tenet.

No, it isn't.
That guilt is not transferable.

Why are you accusing me of not addressing you, when you chop up my responses like this?
Perhaps you should read them again?
Caanan is cursed because of Ham's act: NOT a natural consequence of Ham's sin.
The active wrath of a jealous God: NOT a natural consequence of sin.
NOT a natural consequence of sin.
The children of sinners don't naturally die: this is NOT a natural consequence of sin.
The sons of sinners naturally get hanged?
NOT a natural consequence of sin.
...For reasons that are not the son's fault. NOT a natural consequence of sin.
...For reasons that are not the son's fault. NOT a natural consequence of sin.
Well, OK, it could be argued that it's "natural" for family members to contract leprosy from their parents. Of course, the initial leprosy is NOT a natural consequence of sin.
NOT a natural consequence of sin.

I get the impression that you're not really paying attention to what the Bible actually says. "Natural consequences of sin" is a canned apologetic response.
Genocide implies a desire to erase the subject people, and that IS what happened (according to the Bible).
Because your beliefs have nothing to do with what Genesis actually SAYS, or with the religion of those who WROTE it.
Christians did not exist at the time.
I have a suggestion. Why don't you actually READ Genesis?

The reason why they were thrown out is very clear.
What you believe to be "the point of the story" isn't in Genesis. It's a much later Christian re-interpretation, which contradicts the actual text.
You have still provided no evidence of "misperception".

Christian fundamentalists aren't "Biblical scholars": indeed, they cannot be. Their religion requires them to reject the findings of actual Biblical scholarship. They cannot accept the influence of earlier pagan religions on Judaism, the gradual separation of YHWH from the rest of the Caananite pantheon, the transition from polytheism to henotheism to monotheism, the changing attitude towards human sacrifice, scholarly dating of Daniel and Isaiah, and so forth.

bfniii

i don't recall doing such. i have looked back through my posts just to make sure and i haven't found such a statement. i agree in a six day creation but there is much debate surrounding how long a "day" is.

Sven

Oh, OK. But you certainly understand that there's more to six-day creation than the amount of time it takes?
I'm quite sure, for instance, that you've argued for the "kind" concept of the bible - for which there's no real basis, as you admitted.

bfniii

yes you did. by restating your original comment that it remains unfulfilled which doesn't address any of the rebuttal that followed.

i don't recall making any personal attack. my comments are general in nature. i see where i disagree, but nothing suggesting an attack of a personal nature.

if you will read through the thread again, there are specific responses i have made that support the tyre prophecy being misinterpreted. interestingly enough, you haven't responded to them. therefore, it would seem that my accusation is not baseless.

your latter statement is irrelevant. what is relevant is that the former is not specifically stated. therefore, it is unnecessary to draw that conclusion (destroyed by anyone specific) as you seem to imply on occasion.

i will repeat, what modern source are you using to support the assertion that there is a nation called tyre that exists? there is no more tyre. it was never the same after alexander.

i claim that our justice does not at all apply to God, considering that He created our paradigm.

since that came straight from my bible's study notes, i would say it's good indication that it IS a biblical tenet. it's a strong possibility that the 52 scholars who penned the notes got the idea from scholars before them who got the idea from scholars before them, and so on. that would seem to constitute a biblical tenet.

in this particular passage, the use of the words guilt, soul, and righteousness imply something metaphysical as opposed to something physical. God will deal justly with anyone regardless of that person's past or the sins of that person's ancestors.

and is there any indication given that if canaan had sought redemption with God, it would not be given? while canaan had a bad influence for a father, all he had to do was ask for repentance and it would have been granted. however, the israelites found out repeatedly that canaan had not done so.

i noticed that you cut exodus 20:5 and dueteronomy 5:9 short. that sure makes a big difference. the people God is referring to are those who continually reject God after they had already been warned of the consequences.

ditto for ex 34:7 and numbers 14:18. you (conveniently) left out the mercy and forgiving parts and the part about holding those who are intransigent accountible for their actions.

what does "assembly of the Lord" mean? it could mean they are precluded from holding office or that they must be proselytized to join the congregation.

i noticed that with deut 28:18 you conveniently left out the previous verses qualifying those who are disobedient.

2 sam 12:14 is an example of God exacting the consequence He felt appropriate which, as pointed out earlier, does not contradict with any of the verses from your "no" list.

it's interesting that you don't preface sons with "innocent". that's what you're assuming, right? care to elaborate on why you consider them innocent? being sons of saul, it's highly likely they participated in the crime against the gibeonites.

what exactly does "their blood" mean? the punishment is certainly not clearly laid out here.

God reducing the son's inheritance is punishment?

once again, you assume that the son is innocent which is clearly not the case (v. 52, 53).

it could be. it would seem that in the case of gehazi, the Lord felt that the ascribed punishment was appropriate.

Is.14:21 - are the children innocent? in this case, probably not.
Jer.16:10-11 - check out verse 12; "you have done worse than your fathers"
Jer.29:32 - i guess God felt this was an appropriate punishment
Jer.32:18 - nothing novel here. just a restatement of what we already know.

really? judging from the above, every verse provided is a product of either taking something out of context, or just misreading the passage.

whether it's canned or not is irrelevant. is it correct?

what i am addressing is the desire. is it justified or not? in the case of the amalekites, it was justified as has been pointed out previously.

that's absurd. christian beliefs are built on the bible. genesis was written as a historical account. therefore, it's applicable to christians because it forms the basis for christianity. that being the case, christians are justified in applying the bible to christianity. christians, having come along later, have a much broader view of the passage.

being that you aren't God, you don't know that it wasn't ultimately intended for christians. judging from books like isaiah, i would say there is ample evidence to contrast your claim. in essence, the jews of genesis were proto-christians.

given that i have addressed every verse you cite, it would seem to be clear that i actually have read the bible. what is in question is your comprehension of the most fundamental bible tenets.

i notice that you don't address how it is you think God lied to adam and eve nor my elucidation of the metanarrative. instead, you resort to another personal attack.

apparently not to you.

it isn't? then where did christians get these ideas? where is this alleged contradiction?

um, see above.

what is your defintion of a biblical scholar?

now that is unique. let me see if i can follow you. christians study the bible, first century history and archaeology. but all that study really amounts to something other than biblical scholarship. who, then are these "real" biblical scholars? let me guess; non-christians who engage in verbal gymnastics to twist the meanings and contexts of the bible.

which have nothing to do with the historicity of the crucifixion.

YHWH existed before the canaanites were even thought of.

can you refresh my memory on when jews were polytheistic?

not quite following this last comment.

bfniii

i was referring to the time facet of creation. "kind" would seem to refer to whatever genetic boundaries can't be crossed through breeding thus implying they most likely didn't come from a common ancestor. what are your thoughts?

John A. Broussard

I can see why so many posters get upset with you. You just don't answer the questions.

Let's try again. I asked:

"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?


Remember, we're talking about suffering by innocent people (toddlers, the unborn). They have NO freedom of choice.

So you are saying, apparently, that god couldn't change the nature of our universe without producing worse ill effects. Is that what you are saying?

Please explain. We seem to be going nowhere.