Gamut

So you acknowledge full well the agony and suffering god caused for these people. You say it is his prerogative to determine the length of a persons life...ok, fine.

But can it also morally be his prerogative to cause unlimited suffering in the process?

Yes. This is a completely incomprehensible position. You are, right now, exposing your gods limitaions. How can an all-powerful being have NO other options but to commit an act of genocide by the edge of the swords of Isreal?

Could he not have at least just painlessly dropped them all dead? How can this method be justified?

Is it your position that we should admire these people that were slaughtered? They were dealt the ultimate evil and hardship. Should we admire them for their forced sacrifice to the will of god?

None of your positions make any sense. On one hand he's all-powerful with prerogative to create and end as he pleases.

On the other hand, he has NO OTHER CHOICE but to use the Isrealites to commit genocide to bring about his result.

Tell me, what possible result could ONLY be brought about by commanding one nation to commit genocide against another that he could NOT have accomplished by killing them by another method.

So you can defend his motivation in your mind ( ) but how can you morally justify the method?

John A. Broussard

Lee:

I'm still waiting for that prophecy.

Thank you.

badger3k

Along those lines:

Please, let's not just do a repeat of the Tyre thread (that's still going on, BTW). Another prophecy, perhaps?

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

And then the record continues, with telling us who Isaac married...

No, "right means exercise of might in that area is appropriate." I'm starting with saying God has the prerogative, not ending there.

1 Corinthians 1:22-24 Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

I'm not sure what you mean here, but this woman is not God, people do not have this prerogative.

How could there be the possibility of overcoming evil without any evil, though? All might does not mean the ability to do what is logically impossible.

No, I admire the overcoming, which requires the creation of a world where there will indeed be evil.

Is showing how suffering, even such suffering as this, can be meaningful, contemptuousness? It provides courage, in the face of such suffering, if the benefit is indeed real, and I would admire this woman, if she was not overturned by this, if such suffering did not overcome her.

No, I meant details in addition to the account given in Scripture, as in the opening post here.

Are all deaths not ok, in just this way, then? If so, then would infinite life here on earth be the best of all?

I do believe that death per se is not ultimate evil, and that God has a good purpose, even in the penalty of death, so we may accept God's decision in each person's death, even in these people's deaths. Why is it that if they had died at various times, we would not be raising this question, but if they all die at once, then this question is raised?

Did her children curse her, is this what you are concluding here?

No, if the spirit, or voice, acknowledges that Jesus came in the flesh, that is a test to distinguish when God is speaking. I have heard someone tell of experiences in Ethiopia that confirmed this, when "spirits" were apparently speaking through people. But by supernatural confirmation, I mean positive evidence, we can't change the test! That's just what a test is for, this criterion must be met. And the burden of proof is on the person claiming to hear from God! Not on the person who is wondering if their claim is true.

He is in control of all actions, that is what I believe, and for a good purpose:

Genesis 50:20 "As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive."

Not "God meant good," but "God meant it for good," the very deed of Joseph's brother being sold to Egypt, God meant that deed, for good, the motive is critical, the intended outcome is what we must refer to.

A sign only you see is still a sign, and is even more firm if others can see it too, I would say here.

Yes, several, even!

Babylon will never be rebuilt, or reinhabited (Isa. 13:19, Jer. 25:12, Jer. 51:26).

Though Saddam Hussien tried.

There will always be Jewish people (Jer. 31:35-37; 33:24-26).

Though Hitler tried to overthrow this.

There will be Egyptian and Assyrian people up until the fulfillment of Isa. 19:16-25.

Egypt will never again rule the other nations (Eze. 29:14-15).

There will only be one kingdom following the Roman Empire, to rule the area where Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome once ruled, there will be a time of divided kingdoms, followed by one last overall kingdom (Dan. 2, Dan. 7).

Though Hitler and Hirohito both tried to be rulers of this area, and two more rulers here would overthrow this prophecy.

Well, it is not unlimited, if this verse in Scripture is true:

Isaiah 25:8 He will swallow up death forever. The Sovereign Lord will wipe away the tears from all faces; he will remove the disgrace of his people from all the earth. The Lord has spoken.

Which also implies a good motive, and a good purpose, "He (himself, not someone else) will swallow up death."

Can I not write a counter-description that says just that? In the same way others have added details? "Their swords shot with lightening, and they all painlessly dropped down dead."

Leviticus 10:2 So fire came out from the presence of the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord.

Again, we don't know the actual details here, nor do we see beyond death here, to know all consequences.

No, I don't hold that they overcame suffering, I do not admire those who are judged, even painfully judged. Nor do I hold that death is the ultimate evil and hardship, I would say infinite life here on earth would be worse than death, in such a life, all the bad events that could happen to a person, would eventually happen to them, all events for which there was a non-zero probability.

I can think of other possibilities, however, I do not know enough to evaluate them, we need this information, more knowledge of the past, and the future, in order to decide this.

Regards,
Lee

badger3k

Lee, let's see if I got this right. You believe that the account is accurate, except for things that they might have left out, but those things cannot be anything that might contradict or indicate that the events did not happen?

Nice way to not answer the question, Lee. You keep squirming around like a worm on a hook. Like my old DI used to say, sound off like you got a pair, son! I asked a question and you rather dishonestly refused to answer it. It's the same question others have asked you. I couldn't give a rats tail what you think of death in general. You specifically said that God has the right to take life. Do you agree that THIS PARTICULAR SET OF DEATHS - the genocide of the people by Joshua at God's orders, men, women, and children - is good? Yes or no? Simple question. Answer that once, and prove that you have some backbone. No waffling. No hems and haws. No "but if...". There is a question on the table, answer with a declarative statement. Yes or No?


Looking at this, maybe that was an unattended side comment, but it wasn't my conscious intent.

Here's the original exchange (at least the relavent part - the post is just a bit up for the rest of it):
I used the line from Mark to show what Jesus supposedly said. Jesus was telling the Jews that they needed to keep the Laws given to Moses, and that children who cursed their parents should be killed. Her actions sure seem to be in line with Scripture, since both the OT and the NT show that her actions were within the Law of God. So how can you say she had a false vision - it's completely compatible with the Bible as a true communication with God.

OK, so when you say that God speaks to you, do you ask whether it can say that Jesus came in the flesh? Or if you do not hear a voice, how do you know that she didn't have a similar communication. If she didn't hear a voice, but just "knew" that God "spoke" to her, there would be no voice to ask about Jesus. Or do all of your experiences start out with Handel's Messiah and the allelulah chorus?

As far as the proof, I agree. Prove that your God has spoken to you.

So, again, you believe that the genocide that Joshua commits is "good"? Yes or no?

Once you answer that, then consider that what you are saying is that the end justifies the means.

Avatar

That about sums it up.

The only thing I see is your god acting like a psychopathic thug. According to the Bible, he commanded the comission of genocide...and took a few shot at it himself. How anyone can claim this as anything but monstrous is beyond me.

I might go so far as to say that my own morality is clearly better than that of this deity.

John A. Broussard

These are prophecies specifically applying to the 20th century?

Here's what I asked for:

***

I concur on the importance of prohecy. Now, could you give me one fulfilled, clear and uanmbiguous biblical prophecy which applies to an event of the 20th Century. I think most people who give any thought to such matters, would agree that extremely important events occurred in the past century.

In fact, I would say that historians are in substantial agreement that more good and bad things occurred in the past century than in any other during the other thousands of years of man's existence.

Did the bible predict--clearly and uanmbiguously--a single one of those events? If so, please tell me what it was and cite chapter and verse.

***
No prophesy concerning relativity, the discovery of a cure for smallpox, the exploration of space, either of the two world wars, etc. Nothing, absolutely nothing you have cited could be construed to be a prophecy applying unambiguosly to the 20th Century.

Maybe the non-building of Babylon ranks in your estimation with the destruction of Hiroshima, but I know few people who would consider them to be of equal importance, to say nothing of the fact that Babylon was "non-built" for many, many centuries. So how could the prophesy specifically apply to the 20th Century.

No, lee, you are truly living in a dream world. Hand your "prohecies" to anyone and ask them what in the world they have to do with the 20th Century.

However--thanks for trying.

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

Yes, that is what I believe.

Well, this question is phrased so that a one-word "yes" answer will not represent my position, and neither will a one-word "no" answer. "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

So I write more than "yes" or "no," to state my position, here is a question for you, "Do you agree that this this particular exercise of God's prerogative to decide on the end of a person's life was just?" You see, I have put my view in here, and a simple "yes" or a "no" answer will implicitly endorse my view.

Well, no, "Thou shalt not kill" certainly includes killing a person without a prerogative to do so, and she did not have that prerogative, the conclusion being she was quite mistaken, or not in her right mind, at best. What she did is against the Bible, for it does seem she did not take any measures to find out the source of this voice.

Upon hearing the voice of a person saying "I am a policeman, open the door!" wouldn't we want to check first, to be sure the person really was a policeman? People do abandon their usual caution somehow, in dealing with the supernatural, oftentimes.

Then you are holding God accountable for every death? If many deaths occur at once, people raise questions, but not if they occur one by one, and I wonder why that is.

There also is an implication here that infinite life here on earth would be best, if more is better.

Actually, world wars do fit under a prophecy:

Mark 13:7-8 When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places, and famines. These are the beginning of birth pains.

So the Pax Romana would not last, and there would be unusual wars, wars of kingdoms, even, not just of kings, earthquakes (which records show as increasing), famines (global warming is said to possibly result in this), and then ... we may expect a birth to come, some radical change, after all this. So we are on track here.

Because a "forever" prophecy applies to any time! That's the prophecies I picked, for just that reason. They must always be true, and most of them have even been tested, some more than once, Saddam just recently tried to rebuild Babylon, and let us notice that he failed...

Regards,
Lee

badger3k

Thank you for that answer. Completely bizarre, but it goes a bit to explain your inconsistent viewpoints.

Nope - simple question, simple answer. Once again - God orders Joshua to kill everyone - men, women, children, fetuses. Is that a good action. Why is it so hard?

For me - nope. Completely unjust and evil. See - one word answer. Now, answer my question please.

But she had the perogative - God told her to do it. I showed you with that one quote, and can find many others, that shows that Scripture and the Bible support her actions, so you can't claim that they don't. Again, who said it had to be a voice - do you hear voices, since you say God talks to you? If not, how do you know that isn't what happened to her?
Missed the point. The intervention of God was preventing that from happening. Her kids probably screamed and made noise as they died in horrific pain - maybe God prevented those outside the house from hearing anything? Perhaps people heard the noise but God had them turn a blind eye to it and forget about it. Perhaps a policeman was going to go to the door just before she started, and God changed his mind and let her do her Holy Work. God hardened Pharoahs heart so that thousands would die, so why wouldn't he change the minds of a few people?

It's called scale. One murder is a crime and evil. Genocide, thousands of deaths, is beyond Capital Murder and is EVIL. Did your God send his Angel of Death to kill everyone peacefully in their sleep? No, He had human beings invade, and in an orgy of bloodshed and terror, He had these children brutally hacked apart, probably in front of their mothers. Guess you're right. One man dying peacefully in his sleep at the age of 70 is about the same as that last scene, so why make a big deal out of it. Same with the Holocaust and the genocides throughout the world (Cambodia, the Balkans, Rwanda, Darfur, and a hell of a lot more places).

Nope. You obviously can't see the difference between natural deaths and murder. You mean that you see no difference between your family dying naturally over the years and them being ripped apart by macheritos (I think that's how it's spelled - killed by machete-weilding people) in front of your eyes?

John A. Broussard

So how long do we have to be around to be sure that that prophecy is fulfilled?

C'mon lee, why are you so evasive?

Try to deal with what I wrote:

***

No prophesy concerning relativity, the discovery of a cure for smallpox, the exploration of space, either of the two world wars, etc. Nothing, absolutely nothing you have cited could be construed to be a prophecy applying unambiguosly to the 20th Century.

Maybe the non-building of Babylon ranks in your estimation with the destruction of Hiroshima, but I know few people who would consider them to be of equal importance, to say nothing of the fact that Babylon was "non-built" for many, many centuries. So how could the prophesy specifically apply to the 20th Century.

No, lee, you are truly living in a dream world. Hand your "prohecies" to anyone and ask them what in the world they have to do with the 20th Century.

***

Want to try again? 20th Century 20th Century 20th Century

Give me one single prophecy that a person could look at and say: "The bible said it was going to happen sometime during the past hundred years, and by gosh it did!!"