greyline

Ed, I think you're missing a much more obvious reason why people may not trust God. This God says one thing and does another. It's as simple as that.

Some people - perhaps because of a "spiritual" born-again experience or a lifetime of indoctrination - start with the premise that God is good by definition, and therefore any apparent evil related in the bible is in fact, somehow, good. Others start with the notion of investigating God's character - and may come to the conclusion that the evidence shows him to be immoral.

I really can't think of one good reason to love or praise God, given how his character is revealed in the bible.

I also find it ridiculous that God had a "chosen people" in the first place.

Rymmie1981

And, now, a NT look at this discussion that addresses this whole thread and tells you what Jews understood the text to mean at the time that Romans was written.

Rom. 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

Rom. 9:16 So then [it is] not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

Rom. 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

Rom. 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will [have mercy], and whom he will he hardeneth.

Rom. 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

Rom. 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed [it], Why hast thou made me thus?

Rom. 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Rom. 9:22 [What] if God, willing to shew [his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

Rom. 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,


Where is Pharoah's free will? Where is God not hardening Pharoah's heart by direct means? Does "vessel of wrath fitted to destruction" mean that Pharoah could have not been utterly destroyed by God had he made the right choices? Can the veesels of mercy turn themselves into vessels of wrath, or does the potter have direct power over the exact kind of vessel each person is? Is making something just so you can prove that you can destroy it moral, especially if that thing is sentient?

These are some of the questions that lead to my deconversion. Maybe I'm a vessel of wrath fitted to destruction. If I am, then I have no choice in the matter, and God is one psychotic son-of-a-bitch.

BadBadBad

Ex 10:16-20 Then Pharaoh called for Moses and Aaron in haste; and he said, I have sinned against the LORD your God, and against you. Now therefore forgive, I pray thee, my sin only this once, and intreat the LORD your God, that he may take away from me this death only. And he went out from Pharaoh, and intreated the LORD. And the LORD turned a mighty strong west wind, which took away the locusts, and cast them into the Red sea; there remained not one locust in all the coasts of Egypt. But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go.

He believed in God. He begged for forgiveness for his sins.

NOGO

Ladies and Gentlemen,

From past experience I recommend that you don't waste your time with Ed.

Ed ignores evidence contrary to his belief.
Will never concede the most obvious points.
Has his own version of bible stories.
Claims that he has shown this or that point in another thread or post but he hasn't.

Basically a total waste of time.

Ed's idea of debating is stonewalling.
His goal is to see you give up so that he can claim victory.

Ed gets beaten badly in every debate but continues as if he has the upper hand.

Again my advice is to ignore him.

Ed

While many scholars do think this passage refers to rape. I think there is strong evidence that it does not and rather refers to premarital sex. Here are verses 28-29:

28 "If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered,
29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days.

Notice it says "they are discovered" not "he is discovered". This seems to imply that they are both hiding. If it was rape just the man would try to hide it. Also the passage in Exodus 22:16 that deals with this same case:

16 "If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife. "

Seduction is not exactly violently forced rape. In many cases seduction could be considered consensual.

No, see the bold print below, rape is plainly mistreatment. Being a husband and a wife is more than just having sex.


13 "She shall also remove the clothes of her captivity and shall remain in your house, and (3) mourn her father and mother a full month; and after that you may go in to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.
14 "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.

Ed

Actually I guess I should have said that only in the case of the ancient hebrews were humans allowed to mete out capital punishment for sin. But after Christ came this was no longer allowed other than cases where sin and crimes overlap. So no it is not the same.

Quote:

jtb: I have read the Bible, you evidently have not. Ed: You may have read it, but I have studied it in context. jtb: Then why do you keep ignoring the context of Biblical verses?

You ignore the overall context of original sin among others.

Quote:

Ed: 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. jtb: 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.

I know from direct personal experience that this IS true. How does that passage prove that God does not exist?

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. Ed: No but their parents were, see above about the children. jtb: And what sort of moral depravity allows children to be killed for the "crimes" of their parents? Christian moral depravity.

No, the children were killed for their sin, see above about all being sinners.

Quote:

jtb: 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? Ed: 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. jtb: "Humbled" means "raped". And it is perfectly obvious from the context that this woman was raped. Try again.

Fraid not. See my post to Damien.

Quote:

ED: No, all humans are in rebellion against God and since the wages of that rebellion is death, it was justified. dx: How does an infant or unborn child "rebel?" Furthermore, this ipse dixit is not supported in the texts, hence it remains irrelevant. 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. jtb: 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?

Where have I said that God is evil? There is no inconsistency. The inconsistency is only in your warped understanding of God and his word.

Doctor X

Funny, he tried to make the Ezekiel quote in which YHWH admits to committing evil say what it did not, failed, then tried to ignore it.

Now he tries to pretend the passage does not exist.

NOGO writes the truth. Debating with this individual is a waste of time.

--J.D.

Jack the Bodiless

The first verse refers to rape, the second verse refers to seduction. This is obvious. That's why the authors used different terms: he "seized" her in the first case, and "seduced" her in the second.

If rape WAS a major crime with a severe punishment, there would be a separate verse that deals specifically with rape, but there is no such law in the Bible. Rape isn't a big deal unless a married or betrothed woman gets raped.

...But you already know all this, because we've discussed this before. You are seeking to apply a non-Biblical moral standard to the Bible, because you don't like what the Bible actually says.

It is still a mystery why you embrace some of the Bible's evils and reject others.

Rymmie1981

brettc, I never said that Pharoah didn't sin. Paul never says that Pharoah didn't sin. The point of contention is that Pharoah had no choice in the matter. In fact, let's look at your scripture and see what Exodus has to say about Pharoah's free will concerning his sin.

Pharoah believes in the LORD their God and wishes to be forgiven for his sin. He begs for forgiveness. The tone of his speech implies humility and repentence. The whole episode smacks of contrition until the last sentence where his heart is hardened.

The LORD hardens Pharoah's heart. The purpose is so that Pharoah will not let the Hebrews go. Therefore, Pharoah must have wanted to let the people go, but God decided that He wasn't done having fun and hardened Pharoah's heart. Once again, where is Pharoah's free will? Free means "without restriction". YHWH very obviously places restrictions on Pharoah's choices by hardening Pharoah's heart. This is precisely the same point that is made by Paul in Romans which I quoted earlier. Therefore, there is no free will. YHWH did the hardening. Pharoah was nothing more than clay in the potter's hands.

Following this line of reasoning out to its end, the plagues that God visited on Egypt were unnecessary, the loss of life was avoidable, and Pharoah was willing to do as Moses asked, but YHWH would not allow him to comply.

*the Uber Cross of Doom calmly goes cold as its energy is spent*

BadBadBad

Exactly my point. Where is his free will? It's right there. Did he choose to believe in God? Well, God made it virtually impossible for him not to, but yes he did believe. He admitted his sins. He begged for forgiveness. He exercised free will, and he made the choices you would think God wanted. What more did God want?

I also agree that you can't look at who hardens who's heart without also looking at Romans 9 because the answer is very clear that God hardens hearts. He predestined the damned and dishonored from the beginning of time. Free will? Nope!

Yes, not let the Hebrews go, but why? If God wanted the Hebrews released, he's omnipotent. How could Pharoah stop the deity that can part the Red Sea? What was God's purpose?:

that thou mayest know that there is none like me in all the earth.

to shew in thee my power; and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth.

that thou mayest tell in the ears of thy son, and of thy son's son, what things I have wrought in Egypt, and my signs which I have done among them; that ye may know how that I am the LORD

that my wonders may be multiplied in the land of Egypt.