Simply because the moral in the bible changes over time.

In OT time, God condone slavery. However according to Christians today, God is against slavery. God is either FOR or AGAINST slavery. It makes no sense to be for slavery at one point in time and against it in another point in time.

In OT time, God is against body piercings. It pissess off God so bad that God said people with piercings should be killed. In NT time, God is okay with piercing. Society today is a lot different from 2000 years ago. What's God's stance on piercing today? We don't know.

In OT time, God gets really pissed if a person wears clothes made off two pieces of fabric. In NT time, God is okay with it. What about today? Does God hate thongs? God is either FOR or AGAINST people wear clothes made off two kinds of fabric. Which one is it?

In NT time, God is against women talking inside a church. Today, God is okay with it. Or is it?

Since Bible is the one and only universal answer book and God is too busy dicking around to come down and update his book, it only makes sense that the bible is timeless. However, God kept changing his mind. If the bible teaches situational morals only, it is pretty much useless for today.

Maybe it's because you never read it seriously. It's not a "universal answer book", it's a record of answers. Some things have eternal value, others are shadows pointing to things of eternal value. While people argue about what God is against and what God is for, they neglect to address the issue themselves in any practical way.

You might have noticed that certain things change over time. Mostly these changes are not arbitrary, they result from particular attitudes and reactions to them. Issues about order, holiness and purity aren't addressed in the same way today as 4000 years ago. The Bible addresses those attitudes and responses - how people relate to each other and to God - because patching up the symptoms serves no purpose if the source is never addressed: the human heart.

Jenyar: Maybe it's because you never read it seriously. It's not a "universal answer book", it's a record of answers. Some things have eternal value, others are shadows pointing to things of eternal value. While people argue about what God is against and what God is for, they neglect to address the issue themselves in any practical way.
*************
M*W: Jenyar, you are only talking about christians. Why is it that of all people christians argue this point?
*************
Jenyar: You might have noticed that certain things change over time. Mostly these changes are not arbitrary, they result from particular attitudes and reactions to them. Issues about order, holiness and purity aren't addressed in the same way today as 4000 years ago.
*************
M*W: Well, let's hope not!
*************
Jenyar: The Bible addresses those attitudes and responses - how people relate to each other and to God - because patching up the symptoms serves no purpose if the source is never addressed: the human heart.
*************
M*W: "the human heart." There is no relationship to "the human heart." You are projecting your own thoughts and feelings into your statement.

God Moves In Seasons, And Times And Purposes----all Coming Together To Fulfill His Will, Just As We Suit Our Selves For Our Natural Seasons, So Does God, He Has A Definate Revelation Of His Will To Be In Motion At Its Destined Time, Its Not That He Changes, Its That Its Time For More Of The Plan To Unfold, And Those In His Spirit Will Understand This. :)

In OT time, God condone slavery.

There's a difference between allowing slavery and being for slavery. After all, while God allowed divorce in OT times, Jesus didn't, saying God allowed divorce in OT times because their hearts were stubborn. Furthermore, the Jews practice of slavery was signficantly less harsh than Southern slavery, for Jews would eventually give slaves their freedom.


In OT time, God is against body piercings. It pissess off God so bad that God said people with piercings should be killed. In NT time, God is okay with piercing. Society today is a lot different from 2000 years ago. What's God's stance on piercing today?

Sometimes God gives laws only to teach deeper principles. Whether one Jewish law appears non-sensical doesn't matter unless if there's no principle taught. When these deeper principles and laws no longer need to be taught to men in the way of giving their physical analogs as laws, God is free to liberate men from the old laws.



In NT time, God is against women talking inside a church. Today, God is okay with it. Or is it?

You're confusing Paul with God here.

There's a difference between allowing slavery and being for slavery. After all, while God allowed divorce in OT times, Jesus didn't, saying God allowed divorce in OT times because their hearts were stubborn. Furthermore, the Jews practice of slavery was signficantly less harsh than Southern slavery, for Jews would eventually give slaves their freedom.

That makes it "less harsh"??? :confused:


Some things have eternal value, others are shadows pointing to things of eternal value.

What things have "eternal value"?

Quote Jenyar:
"You might have noticed that certain things change over time."

* Like the Christian god for example?

Quote okinrus:
"There's a difference between allowing slavery and being for slavery."

* If you saw an old helpless lady being mugged, would you intervene?

Heh, nice to be back.

There's a difference between allowing slavery and being for slavery.


Hahahaha. This reminds me of a funny story I heard at a ELCA debate on homosexuality. One pastor claimed that there is a difference between God disallowing homosexuality and against it. God disallowed homosexuality, but that doesn't mean God is against it. Or the other way around I can't remember. Nevertheless, God is not against homosexual priest. Brilliant.

God doesn't allow killing, but that doesn't mean he is against it.
God said people have to believe in order to be saved, but that doesn't mean he requires it for salvation.


Sometimes God gives laws only to teach deeper principles. Whether one Jewish law appears non-sensical doesn't matter unless if there's no principle taught. When these deeper principles and laws no longer need to be taught to men in the way of giving their physical analogs as laws, God is free to liberate men from the old laws.


That's not the reason for the law. The OT says the whole purpose of the law is define righteousness. It gives guidance for morality. I am too tired to dig up the line. It's in deut chapter 5-6. The Torah says law is eternal. No one add to it or takes away from it.


You're confusing Paul with God here.

2 Timothy says all scriptures are God breathed. You can't pick and choose what are God's Words and what is not.

'Tis true that the Bible is not supposed to be a universal answer book. Some wisdom is required, or maybe not, since wisdom seems to be the problem (see Genesis 3).

The problem seems to be, well, nature itself. Even by the most faithful renditions of scripture, the one thing that cannot be held constant is how people perceive the Word, what it means to them as they learn and understand it. So the one thing that changes is how people respond to scripture.

If we are to attempt to understand the scriptures in their original context, legends of Christ among the Apostolic generation, perhaps, one thing that happens is that all those years, all those lives spent, are set aside for naught as all we have learned as a human species in the intervening period is set aside as apocryphal at best.

What strikes me is that the most public face of Christianity in America treats the Bible more like a collection of fables and faery tales than any contemptuous atheistic characterization I've encountered. And then there's that sense of what I would call matronly nagging except that it abuses a stereotype of dubious qualification to begin with; it is enough to say that there's a reason their children are all crazy.

Regression, progressive downfall:
Grabbing what's there and still wanting it all!

On words they fall!

Obsession, religious belief,
Worshipped on Sunday, forgotten all week!

One foot in hell

Taking the truth form the Book and then twisting it,
Feeling they're touched by the Lord.
Loving their neighbor, yet tasting the flavor of sin
But seeing no wrong;
Cramming the wisdom that righteously flows in them,
Walking the crooked straight line;
Closing of minds to these innocents crimes
Now they're deaf, dumb, and blind!

(Forbidden (http://lyrics.rockmagic.net/lyrics/forbidden/twisted_into_form_1990.html#one_foot_in_hell))

It doesn't always have to be this way. And it isn't. But the public face of American Christianity rejects that other part of itself.°

In this context, no, the Bible is of no use as a legitimate guidance tool. But this is not the only context available. Coffee-table atheistic talking points aside, there are much more important issues afoot than one person's testament to the truculence of failed understanding.

To consider an example at least slightly more substantial than body piercing (apparently the bit about taking a crap doesn't fit well into a sound-bite): McKinley, in his article, "When Christ Was Gay (http://www.elroy.net/ehr/gay.html)" points to a functional contrast in American Christianity:

A divorced man who remarries is entering into an adulterous relationship. And it's not just a relationship; it's an adulterous lifestyle because the remarried man chooses to continue living in the adulterous relationship for the rest of his life (or until he divorces and remarries again). However, if you ask this adulterous man if he is still a Christian, he will say something like, "I believe God has forgiven me and I'm now living under his grace." And ask him if he's willing to leave his current wife in order to "turn from his adulterous lifestyle," and he will refuse because "God's grace has already saved him." But this is the same man who earlier claimed that the homosexual must turn from his "sinful" lifestyle as a condition of receiving God's grace.

Yeah. Just try that one on "middle America". Evangelicals. Fundamentalists. There are, however, a host of sects throughout these United States wherein, while people might not have thought about it in exactly those terms, such an argument would find even possibly majorities nodding and saying, "Sounds about right." In those cases, you're preaching to the choir.

Nonetheless, McKinley has a point: such a seemingly arbitrary double-standard doesn't seem to be a modern perception so much as a modern rejection of the Bible. And that sort of arbitrary--"I refuse the least of His brethren because I just don't like 'em"--rejection leads to exactly the unwieldy permissiveness that, strangely enough, socially conservative Christians fear of progressive society.

Are these Christians hypocrites? By what definition, for surely there seems something hypo-critical that leads to the appearance of a double-standard. But what of the Christian standard?

• "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in." (Matthew 23.13 (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=RsvMatt.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=23&division=div1))

• "You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: 'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.'"

And he called the people to him and said to them, "Hear and understand: not what goes into the mouth defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man." (Matthew 15.7-11 (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=RsvMatt.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=15&division=div1))

• "Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.

"Thus, when you give alms, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your alms may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

"And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

"And in praying do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do; for they think that they will be heard for their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him ...." (Matthew 6.1-8 (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=RsvMatt.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=6&division=div1))

Revised Standard Version (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/rsv.browse.html)

There are plenty for whom the overarching spectre of American Christianity does, in fact, meet such a standard for hypocrisy.

We can certainly waste a good number of words expressing disgust at either the notion of hypocrisy or the value of it, but is it, for instance, that Christianity is persecuted, or that a form of Christianity so deviant as to ignore its own foundation is rejected?

The Bible, characterized and empowered by such bedlam, becomes not a tool for guidance or understanding, but a weapon to wield against demons raised in the minds of the faithful and projected unto a world no longer unsuspecting.

You've taken all that you can take. Time marches on again.
You've broken all that you can break. Time marches on again.
Spoken to those who would listen,
Taken from those who would give their attention:
You quoted Ecclesiastes and you brought all our hope to its knees.

Ashes to ashes and dust to dust
You just keep on hating the whole world if you must
If you think that's just.

Take up that stone and feel its weight. Time marches on again.
Cry out, "Throw first before it's too late!" Time marches on again.
Run to the shelter of sarcasm and the shield of permanent grin;
Wrapped in your cloak of superiority so thick that that none of that
shit can get in.

(Floater (http://www.floatermusic.net/acousticslyrics.html))
____________________

Notes:

° the public face of American Christianity rejects that part of itself - "The Lord said, 'Peter, I can see your house from here'." (Roger Waters (http://www.lyricsdepot.com/roger-waters/its-a-miracle.html))

Works Cited:

McKinley, Brian Elroy. "When Christ Was Gay". See http://www.elroy.net/ehr/gay.html

"The Holy Bible". Revised Standard Version. See http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/rsv.browse.html

Quote Jenyar:
"You might have noticed that certain things change over time."

* Like the Christian god for example?
When you changed from a first-grader who had to be told to stand in line before class, to a graduate who could discipline himself, was it because your teachers changed, or because their patience payed off?

Tiassa, hypocrisy does run rampant; it caused me, in frustration, to doubt if Christ was real--yet, He showed Himself to be true. How? It can be summed up like this: "If we say we have fellowship with him [Christ], and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth." - 1 John 1:6

Yet, this doesn't discount the Truth--God's Word. Let us look to purer examples, those that are in lands where Christianity isn't highly esteemed, such as Communist China and the hostile Islamic states. They live lives worthy of honor and applause even from atheists, because they return hate with love. Richard Wurmbrand, a minister during the time of Communist Romania, said that an ex-german officer came up to him in the street. Richard invited him into his house seeing he was in need. Well, the officer goes on to say that he used to work in a concentration camp and had butchered many of the prisoners inside as the Allies were about to liberate it. Richard, who was a Jew and whose wife's family had been killed in the same camp, made this comment, "Sir, my wife's family died in that concentration camp, but I wager that if I introduce you to her, she'll make you coffee and some dinner." He went on to preach the gospel to the officer, who subsequently gave his life to Christ. Richard told him that the wager was still on, and so took the man to his wife. Instead of hating the man who had killed her entire family, she embraced him as a new brother in Christ.

See, these people lived with death warrants on their heads for being Christians. Do not discount Christ because of a society full of hypocrisy. Look at the athiests; many admitted to Richard that they prayed when the Germans were surrounding them at Stalingrad (for he was later arrested, interrogated, and tortured for 14 years in Communist prisons because of his faith). Might the distractions of comfort and wealth distort people's perspectives? Didn't the prophets cry out against the corruption in Israel in the Old Testament? See, man corrupts the things of God. It is why God sent His Spirit--to reprove the world of sin (John 16:8). "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free." Christ is the Truth.

PS: "They return love for hate." is the meant meaning of why the Christians abroad should be applauded.

Quote Jenyar:
"When you changed from a first-grader who had to be told to stand in line before class, to a graduate who could discipline himself, was it because your teachers changed, or because their patience payed off?"

* Que?

If Jesus is god (as Christians would have me believe), why is his character in the NT so different to his character in the OT?

Let us hear from an ancient apologist, Justin Martyr, who suffered (as his name says) as a martyr: " Again, if any of the accused deny the name, and say that he is not a Christian, you acquit him, as having no evidence against him as a wrong-doer; but if any one acknowledge that he is a Christian, you punish him on account of this acknowledgment. Justice requires that you inquire into the life both of him who confesses and of him who denies, that by his deeds it may be apparent what kind of man each is. For as some who have been taught by the Master, Christ, not to deny Him, give encouragement to others when they are put to the question, so in all probability do those who lead wicked lives give occasion to those who, without consideration, take upon them to accuse all the Christians of impiety and wickedness. And this also is not right."

In the lands of oppression this statement makes perfect sense. And as they have proven true through the ages, let us take hold of the hope that they found in Christ--only then does life have purpose; only then does it have meaning.

Stretched: God's nature is not different. In the Ezekiel 38, God says that He wants men not to die, because "the soul that sin dies," and He hates sin. He wants men to come back to Him. In the New Testament, God sends forth the promised Redeemer, Jesus Christ. The New Testament writers expounded more on grace and mercy because it had finally come. Yet, they also speak of a judgment, that same Judgment spoken of in the prophets to come; it is why Revelations ends the scriptures, because it marries the image of Wrath and Love. God punishes them that refused to accept Him, not out of cruelty but love, since they that had accepted Him were persecuted by them that did not accept Him. He demonstrates His love in rewarding His faithful and diligent with eternal life with Him. The only difference between foe and friend of God is the grace extended by Him, because man has the choice to accept or reject Christ. Sin is why Judgment comes, and this [sin] came from man's rebellion.

Welcome, Timotheus.

Can you or anyone else promise that the examples of China or Islamic lands there is an appropriate context? To what degree do they render unto Caesar? How do they carry the fight to stand in the square and pray loudly for other people's praise?

Chinese Catholics, for instance, ought to be free. But at the same time, my respect for them would diminish as they shed the role of the oppressed. The focus will have shifted from their status to their beliefs, and while I get along well enough with Catholics, I cannot endorse their theology or the current political fruit it bears.

And in such a context as free Catholicism presents itself, the Bible is not a tool for guidance or understanding, but rather a howl against the progress of the human endeavor.

People have a right to religious beliefs. Having secured those rights, there is no guarantee that people have any clue what to do with them.

Hi Tim,

"He demonstrates His love in rewarding His faithful and diligent with eternal life with Him."

* And those that don`t make the grade?

"Sin is why Judgment comes, and this [sin] came from man's rebellion."

* Which was pre-ordained and in which man had no choice.

If Jesus is god (as Christians would have me believe), why is his character in the NT so different to his character in the OT?
There are many reasons why you might come to such a conclusion, but just because you think so doesn't mean He is different.

During the long history of Israel, they came into contact with many aspects of God, but most of all His faithfulness and grace. But they also experienced His judgment more immediately, the way a child experiences his parents' discipline more directly, while those outside experience it from the outside. When you realize that distinction, seemingly difficult things like God's jealousy becomes clear: He was protective, because He was educating them in a faith that would eventually have to spread into the rest of the world. Everything He did they experienced in an immediate sense: his blessings, his curses, his anger and his love.

But Jesus represents God's love for mankind, His feelings towards all of humanity. Through Jesus we got to know God in a short period of time and with a specific intent: to reconcile the world with Him. Jesus fits into the greater context of Israel's faith in God, as a continuation of God's creative work on earth. It would be senseless to attempt a side-by-side comparison, as if we were looking at God in parallel universes and not seeing His work progressively. In fact, that's why the gospel writers were so careful to indicate how God can be seen in Jesus as He was seen in Israel - through its laws, prophecies, rituals and offices.

Because the law was not who God was - it was how God judged sin, but it could not forgive sin. The various sacrifices were appeals to God for forgiveness, which He regulated and accepted. Prophecies were how God pointed out future and present judgment and salvation. The covenants were how God made his promises. None of these things give a complete picture of who God is, that would be left to those who lived in a relationship with Him. And if we go by Noah, Job, Abraham, Solomon, David and all the fathers of the faith, we see them looking at God as the source of love and salvation, as someone like Jesus. For those who live outside His will, who pervert God's justice and threaten his children, Jesus was as condemning in the New Testament as God ever was in the Old.

Quote Jenyar:
"When you changed from a first-grader who had to be told to stand in line before class, to a graduate who could discipline himself, was it because your teachers changed, or because their patience payed off?"

* Que?

If Jesus is god (as Christians would have me believe), why is his character in the NT so different to his character in the OT?

People changed, so they had to be treated differently.
As people changed, God, in order to be understood, had to speak to them differently than before.

Hi Tim,

"He demonstrates His love in rewarding His faithful and diligent with eternal life with Him."

* And those that don`t make the grade?
Nobody makes the grade, that's why it's called grace.

"Sin is why Judgment comes, and this [sin] came from man's rebellion."

* Which was pre-ordained and in which man had no choice.
You can decide to indulge in sin or to repent and move away from it. It is a choice as much as anything has ever been a choice. You may not have had a choice to be born because mercy was shown to Adam, but inheriting the world he left us is no more unfair than inheriting the world God promises those who take refuge in Him. Nobody who wants it have to complain of not getting it. God made it available in Christ.

Hi Tim,

"He demonstrates His love in rewarding His faithful and diligent with eternal life with Him."

* And those that don`t make the grade?

And? Would you hire an underskilled worker?


"Sin is why Judgment comes, and this [sin] came from man's rebellion."

* Which was pre-ordained and in which man had no choice.

Just jump the bandwaggon that God is a hateful character, yeah.

You may not have had a choice to be born because mercy was shown to Adam, but inheriting the world he left us is no more unfair than inheriting the world God promises those who take refuge in Him.

And no more unfair than condemning the rape survivor to Hell for pre-/extra-marital sex.

Look, fair is fair according to the ultimate authority, but God has consciously chosen to apply separate standards: one standard of propriety for the leader, and another standard of propriety for the sheep. Thus the shepherd can screw the flock any way He wants and only the sheep will be punished.

ahahaha. This reminds me of a funny story I heard at a ELCA debate on homosexuality. One pastor claimed that there is a difference between God disallowing homosexuality and against it. God disallowed homosexuality, but that doesn't mean God is against it. Or the other way around I can't remember. Nevertheless, God is not against homosexual priest. Brilliant.

If God made the Jews not practice slavery, perhaps the Jews would have killed their prisoners. Perhaps God wanted to test them as to their treatment of slaves. Perhaps God wanted to draw an analogy. Who knows? As for your other point, no biblical evidence exists for saying God disallowed homosexuality, as in the attraction to the same sex. The only viewpoint in both the OT and the NT is that God disallowed homosexual relations--whether God is "against" it we don't really know.

If God made the Jews not practice slavery, perhaps the Jews would have killed their prisoners. Perhaps God wanted to test them as to their treatment of slaves. Perhaps God wanted to draw an analogy. Who knows?

The point of allowing slavery is not to spare the lives of prisoners. Joe Hovah doesn't give a shit about prisoners. Just read Joshua. Joe Hovah explicitly said you can BUY slaves from nations around. Slaves are not usually prisoners.

This reminds me of a funny story I heard at a ELCA debate on homosexuality. One pastor claimed that there is a difference between God disallowing homosexuality and against it. God disallowed homosexuality, but that doesn't mean God is against it. Or the other way around I can't remember. Nevertheless, God is not against homosexual priest.

And such, as we see, is the problem of trying to employ logic in an arena so nonsensical as the triune God of Christianity.

God's pretty clear about homosexuality; He hates it. Nonetheless, God forgives on the one hand (redemption through Christ and all), and to the other we have more and more evidence suggesting that at least some who partake in the love God hates are predisposed to do so by God's design.

This is why if you spend your life hating yourself and claiming to love Jesus, you get to believe you're going to Heaven.

People changed, so they had to be treated differently.
As people changed, God, in order to be understood, had to speak to them differently than before.

This is exactly why bible is useless for today. Bible is God speaking to people 2000 years ago. Now people have changed, but the bible is not updated.

And no more unfair than condemning the rape survivor to Hell for pre-/extra-marital sex.
I don't know of anybody who does that, least of all God. Each is responsible for his own sin, not for the sin he was victim to. Having been a witness to the destruction sin leaves in its wake is one way to realize that salvation doesn't only offer hope for the sinner, but also for his victims.

Look, fair is fair according to the ultimate authority, but God has consciously chosen to apply separate standards: one standard of propriety for the leader, and another standard of propriety for the sheep. Thus the shepherd can screw the flock any way He wants and only the sheep will be punished.
It's a separation of authority. Is it unfair that only the president gets to be president? The way God regulates behaviour is why we have a standard of justice by which we think we can judge Him.

We think we're so objective, but consider for a moment that slavery was as economically acceptible as capitalism is for us. In 2000 years, people may very well wonder why God did not ban his people from engaging in commerce, if it turns out to be even worse than slavery, like the apocalyptic "mark of the beast" without which no-one could buy or sell. I think we'd be better off looking to ourselves for double standards.

Joeman,


This is exactly why bible is useless for today. Bible is God speaking to people 2000 years ago. Now people have changed, but the bible is not updated.

But how have people changed in the last 2000 years? Apart from the technological development, how is today's morality different than then?

Quote J:
“There are many reasons why you might come to such a conclusion, but just because you think so doesn't mean He is different.”

* How about common sense? Or does the Bible require uncommon sense? Sorry Jenyar, but tell me in all honesty. Do you condone this?

“And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle. And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead." (Exodus 12:29-30)

and,

"And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the LORD, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men: and the people lamented, because the LORD had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter." (I Samuel 6:19)

* Are you saying this did not actually occur, that it is allegorical? Now this character is the same being as the one you describe as:

Quote J:
“But Jesus represents God's love for mankind, His feelings towards all of humanity.”
And:
“His work progressively. In fact, that's why the gospel writers were so careful to indicate how God can be seen in Jesus as He was seen in Israel - through its laws, prophecies, rituals and offices.”

* Did this being chill with age or what. Lets take historical context out of the equation, and look at the incidents soberly. Can you condone the above behaviour? C`mon pull the other one, its begging!

Quote J:
“The covenants were how God made his promises.”

* Why did god select only the Jews to form a covenant. Did he not create all mankind? Why is a “loving” god selective?

Quote J:
“For those who live outside His will, who pervert God's justice and threaten his children, Jesus was as condemning in the New Testament as God ever was in the Old.”

* What exactly is this “will” that you speak of?

Allcare.

Quote w:
"People changed, so they had to be treated differently.
As people changed, God, in order to be understood, had to speak to them differently than before."

*Ahhh, an omnioptent god cannot speak in an universal language? K` he seems limited.

Quote w:
"And? Would you hire an underskilled worker?"

* A worthy teacher can teach.

Quote w:
"Just jump the bandwaggon that God is a hateful character, yeah."

* Nope. I don`t consider Buddha a hateful character. There is a difference.

Allcare.

stretched,


*Ahhh, an omnioptent god cannot speak in an universal language? K` he seems limited.

This is a spurious comment.

It is people who don't speak a universal language that need God to adapt to them.


And? Would you hire an underskilled worker?

* A worthy teacher can teach.

For one, you are avoiding to answer.

For two, God sent the people a teacher.


Just jump the bandwaggon that God is a hateful character, yeah."

* Nope. I don`t consider Buddha a hateful character. There is a difference.

Where did you get Buddha into this? We were talking about the God Christians worship.

The bible is obviously valuable as a source of moral advice.

It is one of the best books ever written, and one of the most interesting.

so are aesops fables and a thousand and one nights.
but have you really read it?.(page by page, start to finish)

The bible is obviously valuable as a source of moral advice.

It is one of the best books ever written, and one of the most interesting


Yep, and that settles it.

Quote w:
“This is a spurious comment.”

* Sometimes I can be a bit of a monkey.

Quote w:
“It is people who don't speak a universal language that need God to adapt to them.”

*Agreed. I think that is what I said.

Quote w:
“For one, you are avoiding to answer.”

* What if I had a limited salary budget?

Quote w:
“For two, God sent the people a teacher.”

* And what has this teacher taught you water?

Quote w:
“Where did you get Buddha into this? We were talking about the God Christians worship.”

* I contend that the Christian god as depicted in the OT is a hateful character. I don’t require any jumping or wagons.

Quote Jere:
"The bible is obviously valuable as a source of moral advice.
It is one of the best books ever written, and one of the most interesting."

* `S funny you should say that, my fave is Mao`s little red number.

Jenyar & Water

You two have unintentionally put an interesting point before us.


It's a separation of authority. Is it unfair that only the president gets to be president? The way God regulates behaviour is why we have a standard of justice by which we think we can judge Him

It's more than mere separation of authority. That God has executive privilege is not problematic here. But that God uses a different dictionary? For God so loved the world? Ask Adam and Eve. Ask Job. There's even a preacher or two out there who say God planned the necessity of redemption from the outset, so ... there's that, too.

I mean, it's clear enough that, while we shall not murder, genocide isn't murder if God says so. This is something else entirely. This is the equivalent of telling someone to crouch down in order to be taller.

That God lied at Eden is God's prerogative. But we can't call it honest, and we can't call it loving any more than we can call a circle a square.

We see the issue illustrated in one of Water's posts. Which, of course, brings us to ....


"Sin is why Judgment comes, and this [sin] came from man's rebellion."

Which was pre-ordained and in which man had no choice.
Just jump the bandwaggon that God is a hateful character, yeah.

I don't see how Stretched jumped on any bandwagon. After all, it is our judgment that makes God's ordination of sin hateful. Remember that God so loved the world that He gave His only Son. It's not hateful. The ordination of sin in man according to God's will is a manifestation of His love.

Or like Jenyar's explanation: "Having been a witness to the destruction sin leaves in its wake is one way to realize that salvation doesn't only offer hope for the sinner, but also for his victims."

It's all love. The rapes and murders, the wars and starvation, homosexuality (which God hates) ... all that seeming conflict is just one big warm fuzzy, a radiant expression of love.

That God has chosen this route is only to give us one more reminder of how much God loves us. After all, He blessed our conceptions and births, despite the fact that we're all inadequate for His purposes despite his green-lighting our lives.

Oh he sees again just what the world is made of.
Oh, keeps firing, repeating, "God is love."
Sees again just what the world is made of.
Oh, keeps firing, repeating,

"God is love,"
"God is love."

(Floater (http://www.floatermusic.net/alterlyrics.html#dia))

It is people who don't speak a universal language that need God to adapt to them.

The lack of a universal language is, according to the Bible, quite clearly God's choice.

(Don't get me wrong, this is a thoroughly entertaining discussion. I'm just curious if that affects any part of the point.)

* How about common sense? Or does the Bible require uncommon sense? Sorry Jenyar, but tell me in all honesty. Do you condone this?
Your "common sense" does not agree with the Bible, and yet it is supposed to be based on the Bible. That is what seems to me "uncommon".

“And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle. And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead." (Exodus 12:29-30)

and,

"And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the LORD, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men: and the people lamented, because the LORD had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter." (I Samuel 6:19)

* Are you saying this did not actually occur, that it is allegorical?
No doubt these events did occur (although many manuscripts have '70' in 1 Samuel 6:19), as a temporal judgment. All people die, and this is how God ordained these people would die because of their disobedience. And they correspond to Jesus' teaching about eternal judgment:
Matthew 25:41-43
"Then [Son of Man] will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

Now this character is the same being as the one you describe as:

Quote J:
“But Jesus represents God's love for mankind, His feelings towards all of humanity.”
This corresponds to how God revealed Himself to Moses:
Exodus 34:5-7
Then the LORD came down in the cloud and stood there with him and proclaimed his name, the LORD. And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, "The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin.

Hosea 2:23
I will plant her for myself in the land; I will show my love to the one I called 'Not my loved one.' I will say to those called 'Not my people,' 'You are my people'; and they will say, 'You are my God.' "

And:
“His work progressively. In fact, that's why the gospel writers were so careful to indicate how God can be seen in Jesus as He was seen in Israel - through its laws, prophecies, rituals and offices.”

* Did this being chill with age or what. Lets take historical context out of the equation, and look at the incidents soberly. Can you condone the above behaviour? C`mon pull the other one, its begging!
It is not mine or yours to condone or condemn: God acts as His justice and plan for salvation demands. Sin is against Him, in the first place. You cannot show one instance where God punished someone who had not committed sin against Him. And as He punished those who opposed Israel, He will punish those who oppose Christ, because they represent His own presence.

Quote J:
“The covenants were how God made his promises.”

* Why did god select only the Jews to form a covenant. Did he not create all mankind? Why is a “loving” god selective?
More correctly: God chose to reveal himself to his servant Abraham because He loved him, and gave him a promise. From Abraham He chose Isaac, and from Isaac He chose Jacob (Israel - Gen. 32:28) to become the nation He lead out of Egypt. Through them His salvation would come to the rest of the earth. They would be witnesses to His power, His love and faithfulness, but also bear the brunt of His justice. Their firstborn sons would have died with the Egyptians if they had not marked their doors with the blood of the Passover Lamb. God's selectiveness meant that His name would be preserved among the false gods of mankind, and that knowledge of Him would spread to the rest of the world. He is still selective: He chooses truth above falsehood, justice and mercy above injustice, and faith above works. Like He separated light and dark at creation, He separated good from evil, and sides with the good.
Deut. 7:7-10
The LORD did not set his affection on you and choose you because you were more numerous than other peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples. But it was because the LORD loved you and kept the oath he swore to your forefathers that he brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the land of slavery, from the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

Deut. 9:4-5 After the LORD your God has driven them out before you, do not say to yourself, "The LORD has brought me here to take possession of this land because of my righteousness." No, it is on account of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is going to drive them out before you. It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land; but on account of the wickedness of these nations, the LORD your God will drive them out before you, to accomplish what he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Quote J:
“For those who live outside His will, who pervert God's justice and threaten his children, Jesus was as condemning in the New Testament as God ever was in the Old.”

* What exactly is this “will” that you speak of?
I'm sure you've heard most of it by now, but I'll summarize:
"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"

It's more than mere separation of authority. That God has executive privilege is not problematic here. But that God uses a different dictionary? For God so loved the world? Ask Adam and Eve. Ask Job. There's even a preacher or two out there who say God planned the necessity of redemption from the outset, so ... there's that, too.
These people, you might have noticed, actually believed in God. For the rest of the world it was business as usual. It doesn't suddenly become unfair because God is mentioned. God is mentioned because these people experienced something that threatened to separate them from Him. or perceived how other people were separated from/reconciled with Him.

I mean, it's clear enough that, while we shall not murder, genocide isn't murder if God says so. This is something else entirely. This is the equivalent of telling someone to crouch down in order to be taller.
God's judgment certainly seems harsh to people who've experienced two World Wars that killed more people than probably existed in the ANE, but there was no global morality like we have today, and no comparative justice. If that was the way God intended it to go on, He would not have promised to restore peace even while delivering those judgments. Even while judging the guilty Amalekites, God commanded that the innocent Kenites among them be spared. Genocide kills indiscriminately, God does not.

That God lied at Eden is God's prerogative. But we can't call it honest, and we can't call it loving any more than we can call a circle a square.
Death set in the moment Adam sinned. God did not lie. He may not have keeled over immediately, but was that what God meant? If we are to believe the serpent, yes. If we believe God, no. That he didn't die and wake up in hell may be attributed to God's love, instead they were exiled into a land ruled by death and suffering, which we still inhabit.

I don't see how Stretched jumped on any bandwagon. After all, it is our judgment that makes God's ordination of sin hateful. Remember that God so loved the world that He gave His only Son. It's not hateful. The ordination of sin in man according to God's will is a manifestation of His love.

Or like Jenyar's explanation: "Having been a witness to the destruction sin leaves in its wake is one way to realize that salvation doesn't only offer hope for the sinner, but also for his victims."

It's all love. The rapes and murders, the wars and starvation, homosexuality (which God hates) ... all that seeming conflict is just one big warm fuzzy, a radiant expression of love.
At no time did God approve of any sin, but neither did the concept of sin have it's present "enlightened" definition since the beginning. Sin describes man's position before God, not any action per se. Sin in man is not god-ordained, it is man-created: the abuse of a good thing, turning truth into lie, and perverting justice to serve ourselves.

There's nothing inherently wrong with conflict, but it occurs on different levels. The interpersonal level, where our behaviour shows our true nature and we have a measure of control, and the global and spiritual levels, where we have little else than our beliefs about them. What we think of one nation attacking another lies on the the belief level - which applies to what most of the Bible describes - and what we think of the person next to us, whether a homosexual, rapist or murderer. We are accountable for what we do on a personal scale, and are judge by how we judge. God's collective judgements over nations and languages are outside our authority, no matter how we feel, but his judgement over sin is clear. Jesus said if you have something against your brother, fix it before you even try to please God.

That God has chosen this route is only to give us one more reminder of how much God loves us. After all, He blessed our conceptions and births, despite the fact that we're all inadequate for His purposes despite his green-lighting our lives.
There's nothing inadequate with your life because God blessed it. If you move out from under that blessing, you move away from his purpose, and you bear the consequences. We all start out as Adam, and soon find ourselves sinning among the Amalekites, while complaining how God "ordains sin".

What is wrong is not that we are in exile, or in a war, but that we judge our enemy even while we cut off our neighbour's head. The scale of suffering and violence often fools us into thinking that one side is guilty and the other innocent, but the truth is that on both sides there are people who are guilty of some things and innocent of other things. And when it comes to us vs. God, "Let God be true, and every man a liar", so that God may be proved right when He speaks and prevail when He judges.

tiassa,



It's more than mere separation of authority. That God has executive privilege is not problematic here. But that God uses a different dictionary? For God so loved the world? Ask Adam and Eve. Ask Job.

And? Do you think that if God would love the world, this would mean that life on earth would be all lovey-dovey, nice and spiffy, pink and harmless?

How did Job's life end?


I mean, it's clear enough that, while we shall not murder, genocide isn't murder if God says so. This is something else entirely. This is the equivalent of telling someone to crouch down in order to be taller.

It all depends on the purpose of the doer.


That God lied at Eden is God's prerogative. But we can't call it honest, and we can't call it loving any more than we can call a circle a square.

Quote that lie.


Which was pre-ordained and in which man had no choice.

Just jump the bandwaggon that God is a hateful character, yeah.

I don't see how Stretched jumped on any bandwagon.

After all, it is our judgment that makes God's ordination of sin hateful. Remember that God so loved the world that He gave His only Son. It's not hateful. The ordination of sin in man according to God's will is a manifestation of His love.

Where's the bandwagon? In the self-victimization.
"Poor man, man wanted to be with God, but then God let man be sinful, and this is so bad for man, and God is not just."
Some people -- many, many people -- like to think it is essentially unfair that God made man sinful. As if God was being a trickster, making it hard for man to come back to the presence of God.

"If God had truly loved the world, then there would be no suffering and no strife on earth," they say.

Man has free will -- how man uses it, God does not decide.


It's all love. The rapes and murders, the wars and starvation, homosexuality (which God hates) ... all that seeming conflict is just one big warm fuzzy, a radiant expression of love.

Whose love? An expression of whose love?


That God has chosen this route is only to give us one more reminder of how much God loves us. After all, He blessed our conceptions and births, despite the fact that we're all inadequate for His purposes despite his green-lighting our lives.

What is your point?

As for us being "inadequate for His purposes": Tell me, who is more judgmental about this inadequacy, man or God?


Oh he sees again just what the world is made of.
Oh, keeps firing, repeating, "God is love."
Sees again just what the world is made of.
Oh, keeps firing, repeating,

"God is love,"
"God is love."

(Floater)

WHO is repeating "God is love"?


The lack of a universal language is, according to the Bible, quite clearly God's choice.

And?

Humans did not choose to be made, but they really love to complain about it.

stretched,


* Sometimes I can be a bit of a monkey.

This is not funny at all.


“It is people who don't speak a universal language that need God to adapt to them.”

*Agreed. I think that is what I said.

It makes a world of difference between saying "God cannot be understood" and "Man doesn't understand God".


“For one, you are avoiding to answer.”

* What if I had a limited salary budget?

Ah. Then you would certainly not hire an underskilled worker.


“For two, God sent the people a teacher.”

* And what has this teacher taught you water?

Hah! I'm particularly pissy lately.
But, it is from that teacher that I have the idea to at least try to tone down my pissiness.


* I contend that the Christian god as depicted in the OT is a hateful character. I don’t require any jumping or wagons.

Anyone who has power is a "hateful character", to most people.

These people, you might have noticed, actually believed in God. For the rest of the world it was business as usual. It doesn't suddenly become unfair because God is mentioned. God is mentioned because these people experienced something that threatened to separate them from Him. or perceived how other people were separated from/reconciled with Him.

Interesting, but I confess I don't see your point. More specifically, 'tis a fine barn, but sure 'tis no pool. (The Simpsons, "Bart of Darkness", #1F22 (http://www.snpp.com/episodes/1F22.html))

God's judgment certainly seems harsh to people who've experienced two World Wars that killed more people than probably existed in the ANE, but there was no global morality like we have today, and no comparative justice. If that was the way God intended it to go on, He would not have promised to restore peace even while delivering those judgments. Even while judging the guilty Amalekites, God commanded that the innocent Kenites among them be spared. Genocide kills indiscriminately, God does not.

But sure 'tis no pool.

Again, it's a fine point, but I don't see the connection.

Death set in the moment Adam sinned

First, I disagree on a specific doctrinal issue, but we can save that issue for another topic. More appropriately--God did not lie. He may not have keeled over immediately, but was that what God meant? If we are to believe the serpent, yes. If we believe God, no. That he didn't die and wake up in hell may be attributed to God's love, instead they were exiled into a land ruled by death and suffering, which we still inhabit--it looks like God is using a different dictionary.

Is there a difference between the following?

• Surely you shall die
• Surely I shall kick your sorry ass into the desert where life will be more difficult

No? No difference? Then I stand corrected.

Sin in man is not god-ordained, it is man-created: the abuse of a good thing, turning truth into lie, and perverting justice to serve ourselves.

If the conditions of exile had come about as a natural result of Adam and Eve's actions, that's one thing. But the Bible is pretty clear that what happened after they ate was God's doing.

God's collective judgements over nations and languages are outside our authority, no matter how we feel, but his judgement over sin is clear.

'Tis a fine barn.

There's nothing inadequate with your life because God blessed it.

And yet I, just like you, am born a sinner needing redemption; without that redemption, we are unacceptable to God.

If you move out from under that blessing, you move away from his purpose, and you bear the consequences

What new, modern, politically-correct doctrine is this?

We all start out as Adam, and soon find ourselves sinning among the Amalekites, while complaining how God "ordains sin".

Even original sin evolves. (Somebody mention that to Kansas, please.)

What is wrong is not that we are in exile, or in a war, but that we judge our enemy even while we cut off our neighbour's head. The scale of suffering and violence often fools us into thinking that one side is guilty and the other innocent, but the truth is that on both sides there are people who are guilty of some things and innocent of other things.

I don't disagree with that, but it's still beside the point.

And when it comes to us vs. God, "Let God be true, and every man a liar", so that God may be proved right when He speaks and prevail when He judges.

Counterintuitive given the history asserted.

Do you think that if God would love the world, this would mean that life on earth would be all lovey-dovey, nice and spiffy, pink and harmless?

No. What would give you that idea? Part of the problem is the wickedness of God's love.

How did Job's life end?

How is that relevant? Or do you mean that since he lived out his days and grew old, everything's cool?

Forgive me, please, if I don't attempt to use that wisdom to calm rape survivors or comfort the victims of our war on terror.

In Job's case, it doesn't change the fact that he is expected to be thankful for being God's plaything, a tool of His vanity.

It all depends on the purpose of the doer.

I'm sure that makes more sense to you than it does to me. Because I'm pretty damn sure you're not bagging on God's motives and purpose with that.

Quote that lie.

Certainly:

• And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die." (Gen. 2.16-17, RSV (http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=RsvGene.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=2&division=div1))

• And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." (Gen. 2.16-17, KJV (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1117655889-4056.html#17))

As we see from Jenyar's explanation, we must find alternative definitions for the word "die" in order for God to have delivered on His command.

I mean, we cannot pretend at the outset that Adam and Eve would live forever. New definitions, perhaps? Should we redefine "day", an explanation I've encountered once or twice in the past? Or should we redefine death and dying, as Jenyar would have us?

Where's the bandwagon? In the self-victimization

Self-victimization is more common than you may be aware when the Bible is involved. Nonetheless, the truth's the truth, and if acknowledging the truth is offensive to God, well, there's one more answer the world really needs to get used to.

Some people -- many, many people -- like to think it is essentially unfair that God made man sinful. As if God was being a trickster, making it hard for man to come back to the presence of God.

Given God's lie, and His fearful lashing out in the next chapter, it's fairly easy to see why people look at it that way. Had God any decent integrity to which people could relate, that would be one thing.

Man has free will -- how man uses it, God does not decide.

Doesn't really matter, since that need for redemption exists before one has free will.

Whose love? An expression of whose love?

God's love.

What is your point?

As for us being "inadequate for His purposes": Tell me, who is more judgmental about this inadequacy, man or God?

The point is to remind you that noting the preordination of sin need not be considered hateful.

As for who is more judgmental, quite obviously God.

WHO is repeating "God is love"?

Let me pause here to check the box for, "hopelessly literalist".

And?

If God wants to be understood, He needs to put some effort into it. That effort is not apparent.

Humans did not choose to be made, but they really love to complain about it.

If God hadn't gone out of His way to make life such a ridiculous venture in futility, people would probably complain less. If they weren't mere playthings for a boastful, lying God, they wouldn't worry about being mere playthings for a boastful, lying God. And they wouldn't worry so much about figuring out how the boasting, lying, and condemnation equals love.

Simply because the moral in the bible changes over time.

In OT time, God condone slavery. However according to Christians today, God is against slavery. God is either FOR or AGAINST slavery. It makes no sense to be for slavery at one point in time and against it in another point in time.

In OT time, God is against body piercings. It pissess off God so bad that God said people with piercings should be killed. In NT time, God is okay with piercing. Society today is a lot different from 2000 years ago. What's God's stance on piercing today? We don't know.

In OT time, God gets really pissed if a person wears clothes made off two pieces of fabric. In NT time, God is okay with it. What about today? Does God hate thongs? God is either FOR or AGAINST people wear clothes made off two kinds of fabric. Which one is it?

In NT time, God is against women talking inside a church. Today, God is okay with it. Or is it?

Since Bible is the one and only universal answer book and God is too busy dicking around to come down and update his book, it only makes sense that the bible is timeless. However, God kept changing his mind. If the bible teaches situational morals only, it is pretty much useless for today.

The bible in the Old Testament, Jeremiah prophecied that a new covenant would come because the Jews would not obey the old covenant, Jer.31:31. A new covenant will have new rules.
A covenant is an agreement between 2 or more parties. If anyone violates the covenant, then the other parties are not bound to deal with him the same way. The Jews violated the old covenant, so a new one was needed. The New Covenant is the covenant prophecied to be brought in under the coming Messiah. Jesus christ is that Messiah.
Like I said, a new covenant will have new rules.
The New Testament is in effect now. Belief in Jesus as your Lord and saviour and repentance of sin are the requirements in the New Covenant.
King James version New Testament has the teachings of the New Covenant which is accepted by God now.

Jeremiah 31:
31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.


Messiah covenant
Isaiah 42:6 I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles;

Isaiah 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

1. The new covenant is for the Jews and Jews only. It is NOT for Gentile Christians. Just look at what you quoted.

"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:"

Does House of Israel and House of Judah sound like Gentile Christianity to you?

2. The new covenant is a NEW HEART NOT new law.

Quote J:
“It is not mine or yours to condone or condemn: God acts as His justice and plan for salvation demands. Sin is against Him, in the first place. You cannot show one instance where God punished someone who had not committed sin against Him. And as He punished those who opposed Israel, He will punish those who oppose Christ, because they represent His own presence.”

* So, Jenyar … you have no will or opinion outside of what Christianity allows? Shall we start burning heretics? O.K, simply put, are you capable of the quoted atrocities? How would your conscience sit if you committed the above acts against mankind. Remember you have choices. Leave the Bible out of it. Would you ever do the above? Yes or No?

Quote J:
“More correctly: God chose to reveal himself to his servant Abraham because He loved him, and gave him a promise. From Abraham He chose Isaac, and from Isaac He chose Jacob (Israel - Gen. 32:28) to become the nation He lead out of Egypt. Through them His salvation would come to the rest of the earth. They would be witnesses to His power, His love and faithfulness, but also bear the brunt of His justice.”

* Psychobabble. (with respect)

Quote J:
“He is still selective: He chooses truth above falsehood, justice and mercy above injustice, and faith above works. Like He separated light and dark at creation, He separated good from evil, and sides with the good.”

*So he is still selective as to who he allows to HEAR his message?

Quote J:
“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"

* K, but why would god require this? If you were King, would you require this? Does this not sound like a megalmomaniac?

Allcare.

QuoteJ:
"Genocide kills indiscriminately, God does not."

* What is Noah`s take on this? Drowning an earthfull of newborn babies is not indescriminate?

You know, it could be worse when God discriminates. Remember the first-born sons. What was the point of that?

I mean, if exiles were part of God's punishment for societal misconduct, why murder the children in order to extort the instrument of His wrath?

What the hell guidance does such excess provide?

Quote w:
“It makes a world of difference between saying "God cannot be understood" and "Man doesn't understand God".”

* Why does god make it so difficult anyway. Does he like games? At our expense?

Quote w:
“Ah. Then you would certainly not hire an underskilled worker.”

* Hehe. Mmm, I would probably do it myself?

Quote w:
“Hah! I'm particularly pissy lately.
But, it is from that teacher that I have the idea to at least try to tone down my pissiness.”

* Now that I like. But there are many teachers. So you have received a definite sign that Christianity is the way?

Quote w:
“Anyone who has power is a "hateful character", to most people.”

* Agreed. But only if you acknowledge their power.

(thanks for your input Tiassa)

Interesting, but I confess I don't see your point. More specifically, 'tis a fine barn, but sure 'tis no pool. (The Simpsons, "Bart of Darkness", #1F22 (http://www.snpp.com/episodes/1F22.html))
Look, either you are complaining about how God is treating the world from a secular perspective, in which case I don't understand why you rely on Job, or Adam and Eve, for support. Job lost all and never cursed God for it. Evidently he had more faith in God than you do, and I guess that's the point. Job's story isn'tt old to make suffering seem just, but to tell us that there's more at stake than how we feel about our lot in the world. Job ended up defeating Satan himself, purely by faith in God, without God's intervention. We all feel sorry for Job that it fell on him to prove the power of faith, like I'm sure you feel sorry for Jesus that it fell on him to suffer the final injustice: death as an innocent. But feeling sorry for someone doesn't mean you ackowledge their sacrifice. Thanks to people like Job and Jesus we know that suffering is the worst life or Satan can throw at us, and God's knowledge that it's unjust is what we hold on to.

But sure 'tis no pool.

Again, it's a fine point, but I don't see the connection.
The point is we judge easily from a safe distance. Israel had their moment of glory, and it's marred by a short period of conquest. No doubt it would have been better for God's image had they been destroyed by their enemies, but that's not the way it turned out. Our moral outrage at the descriptions of their victories is comfortably removed from any ANE culture or warfare, and I propose it's even comfortably removed from any reality.

It's the same sentiment that prevented Americans from sitting back and turning the other cheek when slapped in the face by terrorism. It didn't act out of self-righteousness (for the most part at least), but an intense sense of injustice and real threat. Mankind is at odds with itself all the time, and it's hypocritical to point to the moral contradiction of a just war while engaged in one yourself.

No matter how far you wish to distance yourself from America's war in Iraq or its atrocities, the feeling of injustice which you set up against God like an MG42 would be the same whether God allowed it or prevented it. The world's a fine barn, but sure 'tis no pool.

First, I disagree on a specific doctrinal issue, but we can save that issue for another topic. More appropriately...it looks like God is using a different dictionary.

Is there a difference between the following?

• Surely you shall die
• Surely I shall kick your sorry ass into the desert where life will be more difficult

No? No difference? Then I stand corrected.
I'll use your quotes in water's post:
And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die." (Gen. 2.16-17, RSV)

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." (Gen. 2.16-17, KJV)
First of all: "Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died" (Gen.5:5) and "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive" (1 Cor. 15:22). This connection doesn't make sense with your interpretation, and certainly contradicts Satan's emphatic "Ye shall not surely die".

You say we cannot pretend that Adam would have lived forever, but no doubt you've heard the term "eternal life". The Hebrews did not distinguish between physical and spiritual death, as may be seen from the translation of grave, sheol, into hades, more commonly understood as "hell". They believed everyone would be there (or at least in "Abraham's bosom") until the resurrection and "day of the Lord", when all will be judged. So Adam's death is not the whole story.

You were cynical about a reinterpretation of "in the day", but there's no need for reinterpretation. It refers to Adam's lifetime. Genesis 2 already gives the sense, when it recaps the entire creation account of Gen. 1 in one sentence:
"These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created. In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens ... the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." (Gen. 2:4-7, RSV)

"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens..." (Gen. 2:4, KJV).

If the conditions of exile had come about as a natural result of Adam and Eve's actions, that's one thing. But the Bible is pretty clear that what happened after they ate was God's doing.
Only the serpent was cursed directly, having been the source of the evil. For Adam and Eve's own part in it, their lives were indirectly affected, and their punishment pertained to labour: the exertion that would be necessary to reproduce and sustain life without God's help. Their exile is a statement of fact: "He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." The tables have turned, and because of death, life is now on the other side of the fence. Where God once sustained them, they would now have to sustain themselves.

Except that God did not abandon them. From Adam, God chose a path of salvation. Israel knew exile as well, and God led them back into paradise - or at least into the promise of it. "God's doing" was not to let sin have the final say in the matter.

And yet I, just like you, am born a sinner needing redemption; without that redemption, we are unacceptable to God.
We are cut off from God, which is an unacceptable state. Without redemption, we remain in that state.

If you move out from under that blessing, you move away from his purpose, and you bear the consequences
What new, modern, politically-correct doctrine is this?
It might be new to you, but it's a theme behind Israel's journey, and it's voiced in the NT:
Numbers 14:42
Do not go up, because the LORD is not with you. You will be defeated by your enemies, for the Amalekites and Canaanites will face you there. Because you have turned away from the LORD, he will not be with you and you will fall by the sword.

Deuteronomy 1:41
Then you replied, "We have sinned against the LORD. We will go up and fight, as the LORD our God commanded us." So every one of you put on his weapons, thinking it easy to go up into the hill country. But the LORD said to me, "Tell them, 'Do not go up and fight, because I will not be with you. You will be defeated by your enemies.' "

Joshua 7:12
That is why the Israelites cannot stand against their enemies; they turn their backs and run because they have been made liable to destruction. I will not be with you anymore unless you destroy whatever among you is devoted to destruction.

Luke 7:29
(All the people, even the tax collectors, when they heard Jesus' words, acknowledged that God's way was right, because they had been baptized by John. But the Pharisees and experts in the law rejected God's purpose for themselves, because they had not been baptized by John.)

Even original sin evolves. (Somebody mention that to Kansas, please.)
Sin has many faces, but none of them is ever more original than Adam's.

Counterintuitive given the history asserted.
A road through hell will have all the scenery of hell, even if it leads to salvation. Why do you complain about the way God proves himself trustworthy, yet still call Him a liar?

If satan told the truth, why did he do his best to make Job's life unbearable, trying to get him to "curse God and die"? If God lied, why does He save us from death and hell?

You know, it could be worse when God discriminates. Remember the first-born sons. What was the point of that?

I mean, if exiles were part of God's punishment for societal misconduct, why murder the children in order to extort the instrument of His wrath?

What the hell guidance does such excess provide?
The first-born were considered "the first sign of his father's strength". The ten plagues were each aimed at a particular Egyptian protector god. The Egyptians put their faith in Ptah, the Egyptian god of life, and he simply failed them. The children may have suffered the consequences of their parents' sins (as all children do), but they will still be judged by their own sin, like everyone else. It wasn't meant for guidance, it was the final straw before Egypt let Israel go.

* So, Jenyar … you have no will or opinion outside of what Christianity allows? Shall we start burning heretics? O.K, simply put, are you capable of the quoted atrocities? How would your conscience sit if you committed the above acts against mankind. Remember you have choices. Leave the Bible out of it. Would you ever do the above? Yes or No?
If I could balance the lives of those who would have eternal life against those who would lose it if I didn't act, I might be able to make that decision. But as it is, I'm not omniscient. God was willing to spare the whole cities of Sodom and Gomorrah for the sake of a handful of righteous people in them, but they were destroyed. And even then they are better of than those who rejected eternal salvation by refusing to repent their sins.

I'm not God, so no, I'm not capable of such atrocities. However, I'm perfectly capable of murdering someone's character, but I'll be damned if I do. Likewise, "burning heretics" would make me one. I can't give life, so I don't take it. God can take a life on earth and give it back a thousand times.

Quote J:
“More correctly: God chose to reveal himself to his servant Abraham because He loved him, and gave him a promise. From Abraham He chose Isaac, and from Isaac He chose Jacob (Israel - Gen. 32:28) to become the nation He lead out of Egypt. Through them His salvation would come to the rest of the earth. They would be witnesses to His power, His love and faithfulness, but also bear the brunt of His justice.”

* Psychobabble. (with respect)
Romans 9:29
It is just as Isaiah said previously:
"Unless the Lord Almighty
had left us descendants,
we would have become like Sodom,
we would have been like Gomorrah."

*So he is still selective as to who he allows to HEAR his message?
Everyone has heard it in some form of another, and they will "only" be judged according to what they have heard. The word "conscience" should give you a clue: it means "with knowledge".

Quote J:
“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"

* K, but why would god require this? If you were King, would you require this? Does this not sound like a megalmomaniac?
If it's necessary it's necessary. It's as close you can come to enforcing love without removing our freedom. If I were a king, it would mean my subjects have to be accountable to and responsible for each other, while at the same time acknowledge my authortity to judge how they comply because they're accountable to me. If they hated me or were ambivalent about me, they would sit in judgment over each other themselves, and see no reason to practice my laws - to the detriment of the whole kingdom. The highest form of allegiance is love, and since God represents final justice, love for Him also means obedience to justice. He doesn't need us to be powerful and our love only acknowledges His glory, not contribute to it - so there's no question of megalomania.

QuoteJ:
"Genocide kills indiscriminately, God does not."

* What is Noah`s take on this? Drowning an earthfull of newborn babies is not indescriminate?
Making the argument emotional doesn't add any weight to it. By all indications they didn't go to hell, if that's what you mean. The earth is God's creation and in God's hands. As evolutionary or atheist philosophies show, humans have no intrinsic value just by the merit of existing, or because we think we're worth something. Against that background, our value comes from what God assigns to us. You may show all the indignation you like at this, but newborn babies were of more value to God than to anyone who would bring them up in sin. Noah's take on it was no doubt that he was spared like a twig out of the fire.

If God hadn't gone out of His way to make life such a ridiculous venture in futility, people would probably complain less.
It would have been futile if nothing we did had any meaning or purpose. God says it does - even on a cosmic scale - and for this you call Him boastful, lying and condemning? Job was expected to just roll over and give up - by Satan. God simply trusted him.

Quote J:
“I'm not God, so no, I'm not capable of such atrocities. “

* What I am hearing is that if you were god, you would commit these atrocities, right?

Quote J:
“Likewise, "burning heretics" would make me one.”

* Ah, so John Calvin is a heretic. He torched Servetus. But are you not a Calvinist Jenyar?

Quote J:
“God can take a life on earth and give it back a thousand times.”

* Have you felt pain Jenyar? Does god have to take sinners in agony and terror and hang their heads in the sun? How does this add value to the thousand imaginary lives you believe your god offers. You are so indoctrinated that you are condoning atrocities. Pure and simple.

Quote Jenyar:
“Everyone has heard it in some form of another, and they will "only" be judged according to what they have heard. The word "conscience" should give you a clue: it means "with knowledge".

* I dispute your statement that everyone has heard it in one form or another. The mentally incapacitated for example, or new-born babies. I understand conscience and I agree with your interpretation.

QuoteJ:
“ He doesn't need us to be powerful and our love only acknowledges His glory, not contribute to it - so there's no question of megalomania.”

* And if you follow Islam or Buddhism (born into an Islamic family) and don’t send your love his way, you fall short of his glory and in his wisdom god gives you eternal damnation. So this glory that god requires, what is it exactly?

Quote Jenyar:
“Making the argument emotional doesn't add any weight to it. By all indications they didn't go to hell, if that's what you mean. The earth is God's creation and in God's hands. As evolutionary or atheist philosophies show, humans have no intrinsic value just by the merit of existing, or because we think we're worth something. Against that background, our value comes from what God assigns to us. You may show all the indignation you like at this, but new-born babies were of more value to God than to anyone who would bring them up in sin. Noah's take on it was no doubt that he was spared like a twig out of the fire.”

* Hehe. What indications Jenyar? You do not know. These were all SINNERS weren’t they? God deemed them unworthy of life. But you don’t think just maybe the babies and little children suffered and were absolutely terrified as god happily let them drown. Perhaps mindfucked as they saw their siblings and parents dying? Their parents weren’t distraught and traumatised by their inability to help their children? This is all O.K because your god knows best and who are you to question what patently does not make any sense. I don’t believe you are being entirely honest here.

Allcare.

Job lost all and never cursed God for it. Evidently he had more faith in God than you do, and I guess that's the point

And what was the purpose of God's long-winded, boastful lecture? Could it be that Job cursed the day of his birth, thus cursing the will of God? If God came down in a whirlwind and lectured you so rudely, would you dare curse His actual name?

And hey, ask any atheist: the day they see and talk to God, they'll believe. I mean, it's God.

If Job is going to despise himself and repent in dust and ashes, and if the Lord is going to charge him a fee for the privilege, then ought not the Lord at least let him know, after all that bluster and bullstuff, that it was all for a freaking wager?

Job ended up defeating Satan himself, purely by faith in God, without God's intervention

I'll read through the book again tomorrow and see if I can figure out what that means.

The point is we judge easily from a safe distance.

And that's fine. But I think you're pursuing a digression.

I'm back on page one trying to figure out how to explain what you've done and where you've taken the point. I think you were already on the digression when you responded to Stretched.

First of all: "Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died" (Gen.5:5) and "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive" (1 Cor. 15:22). This connection doesn't make sense with your interpretation, and certainly contradicts Satan's emphatic "Ye shall not surely die".

That Corinthians doesn't make sense is not surprising. Satan's emphatic "Ye shall not surely die" refers quite clearly to a term in question:

You were cynical about a reinterpretation of "in the day", but there's no need for reinterpretation. It refers to Adam's lifetime. Genesis 2 already gives the sense, when it recaps the entire creation account of Gen. 1 in one sentence:
"These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created. In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens ... the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." (Gen. 2:4-7, RSV)

"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens..." (Gen. 2:4, KJV).

I take issue with that explanation because, in part, of the ellipsis in your citation of Gen. 2.4-7. Specifically:

These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created. In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up--for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground--then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

"In the day" is an expression that means, more or less, "at the time".

Consider, please:

• Jenyar: Genesis 2 already gives the sense, when it recaps the entire creation account of Gen. 1 in one sentence
• Paraphrase: "At the time the Lord made the earth and heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth ...."

It reconciles better than marking the whole of creation as a time when there was no plant of the field, &c. We need not even worry about the "recap" disagreeing with the "original" account.

Getting back to Satan:

And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'"

But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." (Gen. 3.2-5, RSV)

The serpent responded to Eve; if we are to pretend that from speaking to listening, Eve forgot what they were talking about, well, we're more naîve than she--before the fruit. Look at the word "for", as in, "You will not die. For God knows ...."

Look, I'm not binding you specifically to a modern dictionary, but click the link (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=for) and scroll down past the abbreviation and the prefix, and read through the definitions of the word "for". I'll save you the effort, since I can't believe I'm actually calling out a dictionary for this one.

Look past the first block of definitions regarding the word as a preposition.

There is a quick definition regarding the word as a conjunction: "Because, since".

Thus we can look at what Satan said:

• "You will not die, because God knows ...."
• "You will not die. (God has told you this) Because God knows ...."

It is the same meaning of the word "for" as found in Gen. 2.17:

• "... you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die."
• "... you shall not eat, because in the day ...."

If Eve is so stupid as to lose track of the conversation so quickly, what did God expect?

Satan emphatic? Well, he was also correct. Or, at least, so says me, for at least these reasons.

Only the serpent was cursed directly, having been the source of the evil. For Adam and Eve's own part in it, their lives were indirectly affected, and their punishment pertained to labour: the exertion that would be necessary to reproduce and sustain life without God's help. Their exile is a statement of fact: "He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." The tables have turned, and because of death, life is now on the other side of the fence. Where God once sustained them, they would now have to sustain themselves.

Indirectly affected?

Statement of fact?

God's sustenance?

What would a direct effect have looked like? What is the factual basis of "must"? Is the withdrawal of that sustenance somehow out of God's hands, transcendent of His authority?

Except that God did not abandon them. From Adam, God chose a path of salvation.

For some reason the word "indirect" comes to mind.

"God's doing" was not to let sin have the final say in the matter.

Indirectly, at least.

It just seems that you're reading a lot into the Bible that's not actually written in it.

We are cut off from God, which is an unacceptable state.

That separation is God's choice.

It might be new to you, but it's a theme behind Israel's journey, and it's voiced in the NT

I was more referring to your tinkering with Original Sin.

Sin has many faces, but none of them is ever more original than Adam's.

Sounds like a fortune cookie. Nonetheless, I'm referring to how Original Sin gets redefined every time the definition becomes problematic.

Why do you complain about the way God proves himself trustworthy, yet still call Him a liar?

I disagree that God proves himself trustworthy. That trust is purely a matter of faith, at best.

If satan told the truth, why did he do his best to make Job's life unbearable, trying to get him to "curse God and die"?

I think that's obvious if you actually read Job. From Chapter 1:

• God calls the host before Him. (v. 6)
• Satan shows up. (v. 6)
• God greets Satan, then brags about Job. (v. 7-8)
• Satan questions the basis of the braggadocio. (v. 9-11)
• God refuses the proposition, instead ordering Satan to perform the test. (v. 12)

There are a number of small, relevant, and even perhaps interesting issues that arise. Some of them suggest subtler answers to your question than, merely, "Because God said so." Thematically, "evil" seems to reject false faith. Adam and Eve believed a lie, and perhaps the serpent simply couldn't tolerate that. Job, as Satan pointed out, had every reason for faith. What is there for God to brag about in such easy faith?

It's not that "evil" doesn't make mistakes. Quite obviously, the serpent estimated wrongly God's disposition. Satan clearly measured Job wrongly.

As a side note, I use "evil" in the above paragraph because every once in a while, I come across the theory that Satan and the serpent are separate entities (http://www.gotquestions.org/Satan-serpent.html). Nonetheless, if we accept the serpent as Satan, we might also answer your question by pointing out that God chose to set the serpent and its seed against woman and her seed. If the serpent is Satan, then the devil's motive for challenging God's braggadocio might well be the enmity placed in its heart by God Himself.

If God lied, why does He save us from death and hell?

I've thought much about that before. It's far too convenient to simply say, "Because God is, by our values, quite sick and in need of help."

One can also try asserting that God feels badly for the wrong He has done.

But since I believe that humans create gods and not vice-versa, it is more reasonable to say that the conflict is an expression of the inner drama the tale of Eden purports to explain.

• • •

A couple of random things that occurred to me along the way:

• It is interesting that Job doesn't let Satan finish the job, instead tearing his own cloak. I'm not sure what, if anything to make of it.
• Curiously, part of God's ... um ... indirect effect on Adam and Eve's lives is the part that Eve won't recognize. "To the woman he said, "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children ...." (Gen. 3.16, RSV) How often do you get to look at part of the Bible and say, "Well, honey, you don't know what you're missing."

Quote J:
“I'm not God, so no, I'm not capable of such atrocities. “

* What I am hearing is that if you were god, you would commit these atrocities, right?
If I were God I would have the knowledge and wisdom to do the right thing, the power to punish or protect, and since justice (as my creation has come to know it) belongs to me, it will by default be the right thing and not an "atrocity".

And I presume you don't wish to make the analogy that because it's right when God does it by His own authority, it's also right that we do it. We don't have His authority.

* Ah, so John Calvin is a heretic. He torched Servetus. But are you not a Calvinist Jenyar?
I'm not a Calvinist, but even if I were it would point to some agreement over doctrine, not to a desire to share Calvin's sins. There is no man righteous, not even one.

Quote J:
“God can take a life on earth and give it back a thousand times.”

* Have you felt pain Jenyar? Does god have to take sinners in agony and terror and hang their heads in the sun? How does this add value to the thousand imaginary lives you believe your god offers. You are so indoctrinated that you are condoning atrocities. Pure and simple.
I'm acquainted with my share of pain, but that's besides the point. God doesn't take pleasure in the agony of sinners - deserved or undeserved - which is why He provides a way back to life by offering to forgive our sins. I would rather be punished in this life so that I can correct my sins than live in the blissful ignorance of thinking I'm innocent and somehow deserved my life. Now that I know what it's worth to God I can appreciate it that much more.


* I dispute your statement that everyone has heard it in one form or another. The mentally incapacitated for example, or new-born babies. I understand conscience and I agree with your interpretation.
The mentally incapacitated can only be accountable for what they understand, and Jesus already atoned for unintentional sins. New-born babies are of course innocent of their own sins, but may still suffer the sins of their parents (abortions and worse). Here's a little tidbit for you: David sinned, but because he had been forgiven did not die for it. His firstborn with Bathsheba died because of his sin (who was, of course, innocent). David then says "I will go to him, but he will not return to me". Of all people, I think it's safe to say David went to heaven, and that's where he would be reuninted with his son. The son was not "punished", but it was still "punishment". But Jesus would hardly have said "the kingdom of God belongs to such as these" if children belonged to hell.

* And if you follow Islam or Buddhism (born into an Islamic family) and don’t send your love his way, you fall short of his glory and in his wisdom god gives you eternal damnation. So this glory that god requires, what is it exactly?
If they trust in their gods, they are dependent on them for salvation. They wouldn't expect any less would they? They have their hope, I have mine. You may be confident enough to judge where they will end up, I don't share that confidence. I know that those who believe and confess the Jesus Lord are promised salvation, but I can't speak for those who don't have this promise. What is left is uncertainty, not certainty the other way. God will save whoever He knows, not whoever claims to know Him.

* Hehe. What indications Jenyar? You do not know. These were all SINNERS weren’t they? God deemed them unworthy of life. But you don’t think just maybe the babies and little children suffered and were absolutely terrified as god happily let them drown. Perhaps mindfucked as they saw their siblings and parents dying? Their parents weren’t distraught and traumatised by their inability to help their children? This is all O.K because your god knows best and who are you to question what patently does not make any sense. I don’t believe you are being entirely honest here.
We're all sinners. God deemed them worthy of life or they would not have HAD a life to lose. I'm sure you like the idea of God "happily letting them drown", but that says more of your idea of God than of the flood itself. That's not the first and only natural disaster to happen in the world, and I'm sure the distress was as great as any premature death would be. But like I told tiassa, it does not suddenly become worse because God is mentioned. The Babylonians believed God was merely irritated at all the noise people were making. Maybe that will make you feel better about their deaths. Or what about you remove the idea of God completely. I'm sure that would mean their deaths were peaceful and natural.

Maybe you have a vested interest in imagining God to be some unbiblical sadist, and you're free to hold on to that idea. But you did not create heaven and earth, cannot give eternal life to anyone who dies - sinner or saint - and that makes you a bit unqualified to judge God as far as I'm concerned.

tiassa,


No. What would give you that idea? Part of the problem is the wickedness of God's love.

1. God is not Oprah.

2. God's love is not "wicked". You resent God for being powerful.


How did Job's life end?

How is that relevant? Or do you mean that since he lived out his days and grew old, everything's cool?

God made an example with Job, and then, after the tribulations, plentifully blessed his life again.
You can't judge the quality of a whole life by how it is at a given moment.


Forgive me, please, if I don't attempt to use that wisdom to calm rape survivors or comfort the victims of our war on terror.

God is not a quick.fix, and trying to present God's efforts so only leads to superstition.
Sure, a lot of harm happens -- but people have to accept it, before they can move on. If what they want is just a panacea that will quickly do away with their problems without them having to do something, then stuff them with coke.

And secondly, to help a person by directing them towards God, is not something just any person can or should do. One must thoroughly know the Bible before one can even attempt to do that.


In Job's case, it doesn't change the fact that he is expected to be thankful for being God's plaything, a tool of His vanity.

Why, yes, and it was God's sheer vanity that He created the world, right?


It all depends on the purpose of the doer.

I'm sure that makes more sense to you than it does to me. Because I'm pretty damn sure you're not bagging on God's motives and purpose with that.

God is not Oprah, and He is not Hitler either.


Self-victimization is more common than you may be aware when the Bible is involved. Nonetheless, the truth's the truth, and if acknowledging the truth is offensive to God, well, there's one more answer the world really needs to get used to.

That is Mormonism resonating here, "Truth is truth". Whose truth, what truth?


Given God's lie, and His fearful lashing out in the next chapter, it's fairly easy to see why people look at it that way. Had God any decent integrity to which people could relate, that would be one thing.

By "decent integrity" you mean that God ought to be likable to all people?


Man has free will -- how man uses it, God does not decide.

Doesn't really matter, since that need for redemption exists before one has free will.

The sin trasgresses the sinner. Born into a sinful and ignorant world, no amount of one's own free will can do away with the effects of sin. Hence the need for redemption.


As for who is more judgmental, quite obviously God.

Pfffft. It is humans who are far, far more judgmental than God. Look at a person askew, and they will resent you for the rest of your life. Show some guts and you'll be considered a weakling in the desperate desire to compensate for your shortcomings, and thus ridiculed and discarded as a fake. And never forgive, never forget.

God is willing to forgive, even if it is in the last moments of your life.


If God wants to be understood, He needs to put some effort into it. That effort is not apparent.

And I thought *I* was blind.
Just ebcause that effort isn't apparent in the way *you* expect it to be apparent, doesn't mean it doesn't take place.


If God hadn't gone out of His way to make life such a ridiculous venture in futility, people would probably complain less.

Not all people consider life to be a "ridiculous venture in futility".


If they weren't mere playthings for a boastful, lying God, they wouldn't worry about being mere playthings for a boastful, lying God. And they wouldn't worry so much about figuring out how the boasting, lying, and condemnation equals love.

Not all people consider themselves to be "mere playthings for a boastful, lying God".

You are arguing against something here that is not God.


* * *

stretched,


* Psychobabble. (with respect)

No, you just haven't read the Bible.


“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'"

* K, but why would god require this? If you were King, would you require this? Does this not sound like a megalmomaniac?

Indeed, why the hell should God require anything, right?! He should just sit up there, and do whatever anyone asks of Him, and be a good and obedient personal slot machine!


* * *

stretched,


Why does god make it so difficult anyway. Does he like games? At our expense?

As long as you believe God is playing with you, you will feel played with.

And what exactly is so difficult?

And what exactly would be our "expense"?


* Now that I like. But there are many teachers. So you have received a definite sign that Christianity is the way?

No. But in the name of logic and empiricism, I will not sit here and watch fallacious arguments being made.


“Anyone who has power is a "hateful character", to most people.

* Agreed. But only if you acknowledge their power.

Next time you get assaulted, raped, and beaten up, then preach about "acknowledging power". Your bones will be broken, and your ass ripped up, and no amount of not acknowledging the assaulter's power will make those wounds go away.


* * *

Jenyar,


Look, either you are complaining about how God is treating the world from a secular perspective, in which case I don't understand why you rely on Job, or Adam and Eve, for support. Job lost all and never cursed God for it. Evidently he had more faith in God than you do, and I guess that's the point. Job's story isn'tt old to make suffering seem just, but to tell us that there's more at stake than how we feel about our lot in the world. Job ended up defeating Satan himself, purely by faith in God, without God's intervention. We all feel sorry for Job that it fell on him to prove the power of faith, like I'm sure you feel sorry for Jesus that it fell on him to suffer the final injustice: death as an innocent. But feeling sorry for someone doesn't mean you ackowledge their sacrifice. Thanks to people like Job and Jesus we know that suffering is the worst life or Satan can throw at us, and God's knowledge that it's unjust is what we hold on to.

It seems the counterargument boils down to "It is not fair that people should do things on faith".


As evolutionary or atheist philosophies show, humans have no intrinsic value just by the merit of existing, or because we think we're worth something.

In fact, we are worth about 1 USD, for this is how much the chemicals to make a human body cost.
Something about consistency comes to mind ...


* * *

stretched,


* Have you felt pain Jenyar? Does god have to take sinners in agony and terror and hang their heads in the sun? How does this add value to the thousand imaginary lives you believe your god offers. You are so indoctrinated that you are condoning atrocities. Pure and simple.

Let's get this straight: If there is no objective obligatory morality all would have to adhere to, and all people can choose whatever they wish to believe or follow, then there is NO such thing as "atrocity".

Once you produce a moral ground upon which you can condemn atrocities, then you wil have a point. But as long as you advocate ultimate moral relativism, there is no such thing as "atrocity".


* I dispute your statement that everyone has heard it in one form or another. The mentally incapacitated for example, or new-born babies.

You assume God is as tricky as humans and will be quick to judge, regardless whether someone was able to commit a crime he is being accused of, or not.


I understand conscience and I agree with your interpretation.

No, you don't understand it, or you wouldn't be asking what happens to the mentally incapacitated and new-borns.


* And if you follow Islam or Buddhism (born into an Islamic family) and don’t send your love his way, you fall short of his glory and in his wisdom god gives you eternal damnation. So this glory that god requires, what is it exactly?

You tricky, unkind human.


* Hehe. What indications Jenyar? You do not know. These were all SINNERS weren’t they? God deemed them unworthy of life. But you don’t think just maybe the babies and little children suffered and were absolutely terrified as god happily let them drown. Perhaps mindfucked as they saw their siblings and parents dying? Their parents weren’t distraught and traumatised by their inability to help their children? This is all O.K because your god knows best and who are you to question what patently does not make any sense. I don’t believe you are being entirely honest here.

And I believe you believe God is ultimately tricky and unjust.


* * *

tiassa,


And what was the purpose of God's long-winded, boastful lecture?

For you to see that a misery can end.


I'll read through the book again tomorrow and see if I can figure out what that means.

Yes, do so.


Getting back to Satan:

And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'"

But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." (Gen. 3.2-5, RSV)

The serpent responded to Eve; if we are to pretend that from speaking to listening, Eve forgot what they were talking about, well, we're more naîve than she--before the fruit. Look at the word "for", as in, "You will not die. For God knows ...."

Look, I'm not binding you specifically to a modern dictionary, but click the link and scroll down past the abbreviation and the prefix, and read through the definitions of the word "for". I'll save you the effort, since I can't believe I'm actually calling out a dictionary for this one.

Look past the first block of definitions regarding the word as a preposition.

There is a quick definition regarding the word as a conjunction: "Because, since".

Thus we can look at what Satan said:

• "You will not die, because God knows ...."
• "You will not die. (God has told you this) Because God knows ...."

It is the same meaning of the word "for" as found in Gen. 2.17:

• "... you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die."
• "... you shall not eat, because in the day ...."

If Eve is so stupid as to lose track of the conversation so quickly, what did God expect?

Satan emphatic? Well, he was also correct. Or, at least, so says me, for at least these reasons.

Look at the verse before the quoted ones:

Gen. 3:1:

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?"


Did God really say ...

Here it is, the serpent, using the oldest trick trying to make a person foolish: Did God *really* say so?
And a human with free will will, confronted with this "really?", recognize they have free will, and, at first, use it most unwittingly.
What the snake says later on can work because th