bfniii

how do you know they weren't supposed to lose their appendages through some evolutionary advantage? they've been around and quite successful for some time. maybe with legs they would have had to compete with another, more successful species.

God does look that way to us sometimes. but couldn't that be a result of our faulty and limited perception? what standard are you using to call God amoral?

sure we're allowed to judge Him. we judge Him differently. so who is correct?

not according to deut 24:16

Jack the Bodiless

You seem to be confusing the Babylonians with the Persians here. Tyre survived Nebuchadnezzar, and was peacefully absorbed into another empire, without military conquest. Tyre was never destroyed by "the armies of many nations".
Nope, many of the same buildings and people. 15,000 people escaped to Sidon and then returned, and Alexander is described as destroying "half" the city. Which soon recovered, in defiance of the prophecy.

The prophecy failed.
Again, you really need to READ THE BOOK at some point. This was punishment. Indeed, you have even admitted this!

Do you remember this exchange?
So, it's "rather obvious" that the snake was punished!

And again:
You have no problem with the notion that the snake is being punished, EXCEPT when you are directly challenged on the morality of inflicting that same punishment on ALL snakes for the crime of "being impersonated by Satan in the distant past".

You obviously haven't thought through the implications of your own worldview.
The problem is that YOUR twisting of what is actually a perfectly straightforward "just-so story" renders the Biblical God utterly incomprehensible to anyone (including yourself). Ironically, all this twisting is in order to preserve a belief in "Biblical inerrancy"! How can you justify altering, and even reversing, the meaning of Biblical verses for this purpose?
Would it be "evil" if I did this?

If so: why won't you accept that God is "evil" too, but you simply don't care about that anymore?

bfniii

wouldn't you agree that the text suggests different things to do different people?

their existence in the garden of eden.

so we're judging God's entire morality on this one phrase as opposed to the entire bible? the overall plan you suggest isn't based on just one verse.

for some reason you clipped my observation that either way, God gets what He wants. we are going to choose heaven or hell whether we're in the garden of eden or not. your response seems to not address this.

should this be determined from the OT alone?

i take it you know of some other reason for freewill or the notion of morality.

it would stand to reason that an omnipotent God could create a world devoid of freewill if He so chose.

i would agree.

if the fall will usher in pain, suffering and death in this life, we shouldn't expect Him to want that.

not this particular text, but the bible as a whole.

as i have said, why should we expect that God would want us to choose an action which has deliterious consequences? He wouldn't. however, God can use this for ultimate good and ultimate justice. this is irrelevant to the fact that satan played a part in the fall and is held accountible. God would have been unjust to allow satan to precipitate the fall of man and go unpunished.

i understand that it doesn't make sense to you. apparently, the metanarrative is accepted by christians and jews all over the world. i realize you might respond by saying those people are stupid, dogmatic, anachronistic fools. if so, i'm sorry you feel that way.

thank you for your time. i'm sorry we couldn't come to terms on some of these issues. i guess we'll agree to disagree.

i think the main confusion stems from judging God and His intentions for man solely from this one passage. i think it provides an incomplete picture. you think it's sufficient.

bfniii

posted.

it's not so much that He has a "right" to, although He does. it's that pain or suffering is temporary and can be used for ultimate good.

certainly. that should be self evident.

we DO have a right to judge Him for it. how accurately we judge Him is in question.

unlikely to whom?

there's no "inability" about it. i fully recognize that God acts contrary to what we often think is just. our concept of justice is limited, flawed, subjective, relative and often irrational.

i have tried to get an answer to this question: in judging the biblical accounts of God's actions and declaring them moral or immoral, what standard are you using?

this is most certainly not the case.

1. there are absolutely no words in ezekiel 26 that specifically designate his actions as being permanent.
2. the reference to nebuchadnezzar is not analogous to the "many nations" cited using the original language
3. by all accounts, nebuchadnezzar destroyed the mainland thus fulfilling verses 7-11, partially fulfilling verses 3-6 and 12 (along with "many nations" later) and deported the monarchy thus fulfilling verse 21.

the text does not say the word "conquer" or anything like it.

"everyone" is not supposed to destroy the city, God is.

these verses are not referring to the place, but the political establishment.

he did succeed in fulfilling his part.

not ALL of the language as i have shown.

the chapter does not imply specifically that this is the only method by which tyre would fall. the main point heralded in verse 3 is that God is "against thee". there is no "tyre will fall because of conquest".

which verses?

the word used, nathan, has nothing to do with ritual sacrifice. therefore, this verse does not advocate ritual sacrifice.

the question is which humans? there are two groups referred to.

that's the first group mentioned.

now you're referring to the second group mentioned in the second half of verse 28; "Anything devoted to destruction is most holy to the LORD." matthew henry notes "The city of Jericho in particular was thus devoted, Jos. 6:17. The inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead were put to death for violating the curse pronounced upon those who came not up to Mizpeh, Jdg. 21:9, 10."

leviticus does not advocate ritual human sacrifice.

what we need here is some support claiming that all hebrews everywhere during biblical times were polytheistic and performed ritual human sacrifice. without such support, such a claim is not entirely correct.

celsus records people using similar techniques to produce miracles similar to Jesus'. it's certainly not out of the realm of possibility.

the two may have coincided, but that does not preclude that the people of that time knew of other events that could have been leveraged from. you make it out like they were required to start the volcano in order to produce magic. you would need to show that those were the only tricks they knew in order to hold such a position.

but known to other people.

or knew the event was going to happen and leveraged from it.

apparently so.

that would seemingly be the case.

Johnny Skeptic

There is nothing rambling about it. The texts say that Jesus healed people. Is someone who heals people not a good person? There is no evidence that Jesus ever healed anyone, and there is no tangible evidence that God is active in the world today.

spin

As I perceive it, the thread is all over the place, much of it unrelated to BC&H.

Most of my comment was about the meaninglessness of predicating god with the notion of "good". It doesn't have any content.


spin

Sven

I already said that I won't discuss this further, only three comments:

Your version? I highly doubt this. This is the first time I've ever heard this ridiculous negation of clear words.

You were wrong. I have no (OK, hardly any) problem at all with people who accept this story as an allegory about the relationship of god&humans. But those people don't negate the clear meaning of words. So there's no reason to call them "stupid, dogmatic, anachronistic fools."


Bnfiii: One problem with the bible is (it's obvious to anyone reading it without a preconceived conclusion) that one can read anything into it. Usually, one reads exactly this which one already believes in. So I don't buy your evasion that the entire bible suggests that his plan is what you claim - the entire bible suggests a myriad of different plans if you ask different people.

bfniii

because there is no evidence against it. there is no historical account that definitively says anything to the contrary. to say that he didn't execute these actions is speculation that the mainland did not have these attributes. given that the mainland was destroyed, it is more likley that these things did happen.

i guess we agree to disagree. without contradictory evidence, i see no reason to not believe the biblical account. he didn't have to attack the island to fulfill 7-11 and there's no reason to think that he didn't fulfill 7-11 except speculation that the mainland was unable to support such actions.

let's back up a step. i asked you how we would know we did anything wrong sans consequences in this life. you state that if you don't get caught, there are no consequences. but that doesn't answer the question. you still know that you committed a crime. therefore, you have knowledge of consequences despite the ineffectiveness of the law enforcement. so if there had never been any recompense for wrongs in this life, how would we have any notion of morality?

maybe indirectly and not without ultimate good. besides, allowing it doesn't mean He enjoys it.

no. but they deliberately inflict painful treatments on people for the good of their health.

the shock collar analogy was in reference to pets. sometimes pet owners and trainers deliberately inflict pain on their pet to teach them a valuable lesson, one that might save their life in the future.

that's just it, you assume that there MUST exist a painless treatment. that is the assumption we must address. where do you get your assumption from?

if it:
1. respects our ability to choose
2. is for ultimate good

then yes.

and when primates commit infanticide or cannibalism? bad analogy.

monkeys aren't analogous because they aren't sentient. they live on instinct. where did our ontological morality come from? i'm talking about the occasional tendancy to overcome the instinct of self preservation to help another or the idea of a greater good or the idea of "fair play". how do we know to recognize it in monkeys? where does our frame of reference come from?

let me get this straight; you are judging an alledgedly omniscient and infinte God with a subjective and relative morality, but i'm confused. multiple people on this thread have suggested judging God on one or just a few bible verses which is less than comprehensive.

let's reset. you think that the bible says God is opposed to punishing people for the crimes of others. i pointed out that the 3 verses you cite do not refer to that doctrine. therefore, you don't have any examples of what you claim. furthermore, i have agreed that God allows pain, suffering and death even when we aren't the direct cause.

i then pointed out that deut 24:16 does indeed oppose people judging people for the crimes of others. you say it is a rare example. how many examples do you think the bible should contain to be opposed to it?

i didn't bring it up. you did. i responded to your claim that God inflicted punishment. i agree God allows suffering. i also agree that the bible opposes people punishing innocent people as outlined in deut 24:16

you assume God:
1. enjoys our suffering
2. has no good reason to allow it
3. we don't deserve it

i have treated each of these assumptions

i do care. the reasons are outlined above.

nor is that what i said. i never used the term "only".

no lie at all. the bible plainly elucidates who got punished for what. my point was addressing the fallacy of who deserves what. by what standard are we creating this casuistry?

which you claim advocates child sacrifice. the word used is "nathan" which has nothing to do with child sacrifice.

i never claimed this verse is about volunteering. that's the leviticus verse.

the text does not imply "his men".

a volunteer is not devoted by another person. that is my point. this verse doesn't refer to human sacrifice or sacrifice of the firstborn.

they don't. i didn't claim they did. my claim has been that a person voluntarily enters into a binding agreement by consecrating himself (of man), by devoting his possessions (of beast) or by holding accountible those who committed crimes against israel (anything devoted to destruction). the passage does not necessarily imply that the person is committing to sacrifice another person.

it sounds as if you are characterizing me as young earth. am i correct?

it is? i'm still having trouble finding the words "only because" or "for no other reason".

this is after you make up words that aren't there.

still no quote from you supporting your statement that [christian] scholars make baseless claims.

i agree with you. there are all kinds of crazy people out there, christian and non-christian. it's just that your statement is pretty much hurling the elephant in accusing christians. you insult christians because "you have checked out their claims". why not say some christians make baseless claims?

so we disagree. i provided several reasons why they are.

so the jews who are still jews disagree with atheist beliefs so athesim is false. you set up the jews who reject Jesus as authorities. consequently, any jews that reject atheism have thus proven atheism is invalid.

what evasion?! you have tried to appeal to numbers, i called you on it and you can't even admit you made the mistake. simply being a majority doesn't make that group correct. therefore, i have asked you WHY they are correct to which you have avoided posting a response for quite some time now.

and you have agreed there are natural explanations for them. so we're in agreement that the events can be explained and supported by natural scientific explanations. so the only thing left is to explain the last one.

they were? what source are you using that claims all jews from all times have been polytheistic? i'm sure the contemporary monotheistic jews who think their religion originated from yahweh alone would be interested in such information.

Jack the Bodiless

bfniii:
Uh... you ARE joking, right?

I'm not sure that it's worth continuing to hold a discussion with someone who seriously thinks that volcanoes have a natural ability to turn sticks into snakes. This is way, way out in what Sven referred to as "woowoo-land": a territory I am unfamiliar with.
History records that Nebby tried to breach Tyre's walls for 13 years, and failed to do so. If you wish to concoct a fantasy that "Tyre's walls" refers NOT to the massive 150-feet-high walls of the city itself, but to some other set of walls somewhere else: don't you think it would be a good idea to provide some sort of evidence for the existence of such walls?
God is supposedly going to use the armies of "many nations" to do so. But they (and God) failed anyhow.
No, the preceding verses refer to Tyre's riches and merchandise in the past tense. Tyre's wealth will pass: except that it did NOT pass when Tyre was absorbed into the Persian empire.
Ezekiel 26:14 And I will make thee like the top of a rock: thou shalt be a place to spread nets upon; thou shalt be built no more: for I the LORD have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD.

Ezekiel 26:19 For thus saith the Lord GOD; When I shall make thee a desolate city, like the cities that are not inhabited; when I shall bring up the deep upon thee, and great waters shall cover thee.

...These verses describe physical destruction, the obliteration of the city: followed by the description of Tyre's fall as a mercantile power, as previously mentioned. Neither Nebby nor Alexander did this.
There is no evidence of any supernatural recompense, and none is required to explain human morality: we are social animals shaped by biological and social evolution.
An omnipotent doctor would make ALL treatments painless. Where the pain is supposed to teach something, that lesson could be imparted painlessly by telepathically placing the information in the subject's brain.

On injustice and suffering:
I see you still have some vestiges of humanity left, you're having trouble swallowing your own "bfniii principle". The punishment of children for the crimes of their parents isn't something that "respects their ability to choose".

On justice:
Why are you asking me to answer this question twice?

EVOLUTION.

We evolved as social animals. We have this instinct to preserve our species.
No, I'm judging a God allegedly created (in their image) by primitive tribesmen, and revised over the centuries. I find that it makes sense, given the context. I don't find it confusing.
Again, you seem to be struggling with your own "bfniii principle" here.

It's your struggle: your religion versus your conscience. I'll leave you to it.

On Exodus 22:29 and Leviticus 27:28-29:
Nowhere in EITHER verse is "volunteering" mentioned.
ALL men devoted must be sacrificed. NONE may be redeemed. Therefore this includes enemies as you describe, but must ALSO include the firstborn: as they, too, are men devoted to God.
That is the Biblical position. But OEC "day-age" apologetics won't move the Flood date.
No, that appears to be what YOU are doing.

You wish that there were other reasons. You wish this so desperately that, when I point out that only one reason is stated, you accuse me of being "incorrect" because the text of Genesis will not rearrange itself to conform with your wish.

ONLY ONE REASON IS STATED. That is a simple FACT, easily verified by reading the book.

Any OTHER reasons exist only within your own imagination. They are not STATED.

On Jewish rejection of Jesus:
I have already explained WHY the Jews (most of them) are more probably correct: because it's reasonable to suppose that they understand THEIR religion.

You're still not providing me with an explanation of what YOU think the reason is that most Jews reject Christianity. What do YOU think their "problem" is, exactly?
I have never claimed that ALL Jews from ALL times have been polytheistic: only that the religion was ORIGINALLY polytheistic. YHWH was one of the sons of EL (traditionally 70 in number), and had a consort named Asherah (a.k.a. Ashtoreth). This is well-known.

Johnny Skeptic

Allowing things like the Bubonic Plague, the recent tsunami in Asia and Hurricane Katrina DOES make God evil according to every modern standard of law and common decency. No loving human father would allow such things to happen to his children. Parents are bound by law to protect their children. In addition, no loving human father would allow such things to happen to his children without explaining to them IN PERSON why he allowed them to happen. I am not at all opposed to the notion of a loving God disciplining mankind, but MOST CERTAINLY NOT the way that he supposedly does so all because Adam and Eve supposedly ate some forbidden fruit.

If the God of the Bible exists, it is a fact that he created natural disasters and a host of other awful things.

There isn't any evidence at all that God is good today in noticeably tangible ways that can directly be attributed to him, or that he ever was good in noticeably tangible ways that could have been directly attributed to him.

The texts say that Jesus provided tangible proof that he had supernatural powers, and that after Jesus had died and the Holy Spirit had come to the Church, the disciples still went about confirming "the message of his grace" with signs and wonders. It is a fact that there is much more need today of confirming "the message of his grace" with noticeably tangible signs and wonders than was the case back then with the supposed presence of a veritable plethora of eyewitnesses who could offer first hand accounts of miracles.

In short, ANY Christian would prevent natural disasters from occuring if he were able to do so, and ANY Christian would be quite pleased if God provably prevented ALL natural disasters from occuring.

If God's thoughts and ways are actually different from our own thoughts and ways, even if he does not wish to explain himself more fully at this time, it is only fair that tell us that himself IN PERSON, not through human proxies claiming that they are speaking for him. The writers of all relgious books claim that they are speaking for a variety of Gods. Why don't you believe what they claim? What problem do you have with Deism?