Animal Sacrifices in the Bible?

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by SetiAlpha6, Jan 30, 2007.

  1. SnakeLord Valued Senior Member

    Assuming the bible is true don't you think god happily letting satan loose to cause utter havoc upon mankind for 1000 years is a tad nasty? Do you not also think that sending angels and horsemen to destroy the universe is equally evil all because some people don't believe in him or acted in a manner typical of humans to have done since the day of their creation?

    Assuming the bible is true wouldn't you consider the annihilation of every man, woman, child and animal as a tad.. mean?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Satan is released for a short time at the end of the thousand year rule of Christ on this Earth, based in Jerusalem, which begins after Armageddon, and ends with the creation of the new Heavens and Earth.

    So you don't favor Christ's return to establish peace on Earth for a thousand years?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. SnakeLord Valued Senior Member

    How is that going to be accomplished exactly?

    For millennia you theists have waffled on about 'choice' and 'free will' but if jesus comes and forces people to be at peace then they no longer have free will.. And of course, as revelations shows, the only way to get to that peace you envision is for the death and annihilation of everyone that disagrees with you/doesn't believe in god etc. As they say; "fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity".. and yet that's exactly what it comes down to.. Kill everyone that disagrees.

    The question here is.. why bother in the first place? Why not create this jerusalem made out of gold and gems instead of camel poo and just have a bunch of subserviant peaceful people without wasting all this time making people that aren't peaceful just to annihilate them and end up with a place full of peaceful people? It seems.. well, plain bloody stupid.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Please show me where it states that they understood this idea in the Old Testament, according to the Old Testament Law.

    According to Psalm 51:16, no he did not. "For You do not delight in sacrifice, otherwise I would give it” So, was he breaking the Law of Moses here by not giving the sacrifice, or not?

    Psalm 51:15-17
    15 O Lord, open my lips,
    That my mouth may declare Your praise.
    16 For You do not delight in sacrifice, otherwise I would give it;
    You are not pleased with burnt offering.
    17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;
    A broken and a contrite heart, O God, You will not despise.

    But then according to 1 Chronicles, yes he did give a sacrifice. Now, did he do this here because he thought that this would please God? But, I thought he just said above that it would not please God? This is just a little confusing!

    1 Chronicles 21:27-29
    27 Then the LORD spoke to the angel, and he put his sword back into its sheath. 28 At that time, when David saw that the LORD had answered him on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite, he offered sacrifices there. 29 The tabernacle of the LORD, which Moses had made in the desert, and the altar of burnt offering were at that time on the high place at Gibeon.

    What are you saying here exactly?

    If Paul took part in this sacrifice then he was either doing it in agreement or in disagreement with it. If he did this in agreement, then he must have believed that he still needed the animal sacrifice for sin even though he already was covered by the sacrifice of Christ. This cannot be the case! Right?

    But if he was in disagreement, then by participating in it Paul would have appeared to be giving his approval of it, at least, in all the minds of those who witnessed him. And, he would have thus been deliberately deceiving everyone around him. He would have been trying to fool the very people he was trying to save?

    If I were to join a Mormon church and participate in their rituals, without really believing in them I would be lying to everyone who witnessed me. That would be false, deceitful, and immoral. How is Paul different?

    Why is it moral for Paul to try and reach people for Jesus by deceit? Does this end justify lying?

    Perhaps you have a third option?

    Take Care!
  8. Warrior61 I saw the Light Registered Senior Member

    Death: The end of physical life. The point where your soul leaves your body. This thread was the explanation of the Bible and what it says on sacrifice so in this case I have the luxury of using scripture for authority for my argument. Again there is no where in the Bible that says the sacrifice had to stay dead. Plus I believe in the ressurection of the dead which wouldn't be possible without Christ ressurecting from the dead, or conquering the grave. The sacrifice was through when Jesus said "It is finished." Get it, finished.

    I don't understand where you are coming from on this one.

    A)If you sacrifice you take the place. Jesus on the cross is Him taking my place. "Sacrificing" Himself for me. This is Him taking my punishment. Pretend?

    B) The lesson is until we actually have a concept of consequences for our actions we would never understand the severity.

    No I am saying the body of Jesus Christ was dead. Jesus was still spiritually alive.

    Us having a disagreement of understanding is different from me reading unless you have psychic powers. No I say we have the ability to choose between GOOD and EVIL, to OBEY or DISOBEY God. All they did was Obey until they disobeyed so all they knew was Good. The Bible's definition of Good would be Obeying God. Guess what evil, or sin is. Yep you got it! Disobedience.

    God has the right to end life. Remember from above Good would be doing what God wants. God killing people is carrying out His justice.

    Where else have I brought up the it's symbolic card. In this case animal sacrifice is an action done out of obedience to show Faith in and Love for God. Cain's sacrifice was not acceptable. Period. That is what scripture says. So obviously their was more to the sacrifice.

    Yea you got me with that one. Good shot. lol no remark.

    Pay attention to the first two words in one of your posts please.

    No way you brought your wife up. "My wife" just means something else.

    Does she love you? If you answer yes then please tell me how you know if your answer is no then you have got something to sort out. I don't what you thought I was talking about but you will if you answer the question.

    OK. I want a pool. I do not need a pool. I need food, coincidentally I also want food. See the difference. You want hugs and kisses but like you said you do not need them.

    Where did you get that from. If you have the luxury to say that something is unacceptable then you obviously do not need it. Think about it. If you can turn something down then you obviously you do not need it.

    Negative, as explained above.

    They are unable to write why? They don't have hands our they don't have the capacity to actually write.

    Did they do evil before they disobeyed? No, so all they knew was good. It only makes sense. What else would you call it.

    Just because all they knew was good doesn't exclude them from responsibility. I do not know what it is like to smoke, therefore I can't know what smoking really is however I have an idea. I also have the ability to smoke. So will this mean if I start smoking it is not my fault?

    I do not see the point in debating that issue right now. Remember the whole discussion we had on sticking to the topic. You replied the mind wanders so I am trying to help you. Next time a "Thank you" will do fine, or in your case "Bloody thank you." So your Bloody Welcome.
  9. Warrior61 I saw the Light Registered Senior Member

    You have repeatedly. For instance the verse you gave about David. Obviously there is something deeper, something more. Here is the King of Israel saying this.

    Who knows He could have given one after that. I think you are missing the point, what is David trying to say.

    Paul said to the Jew I am a Jew to the Gentile I am a Gentile. He would changed his actions around people to gain favor or seem somewhat acceptable in their eyes. He was still truthful in his beliefs he is not saying to change your beliefs he is just saying change your manerisims.

    He did not do it for sin. This was a Jewish thing. Go back to Acts 21 and this time start with verse 17 and go to 26(the verse you brought up).

    If what he was doing was needed for sin you would have found a hole but it wasn't for sin. His offering was apart of a vow. He was Jewish and was just doing a custom. Now if a custom violates a belief then is in no way that acceptable.

    That is true. Paul is not following another religion he is following his simply doing a tradition done in his country.

    Lying? No. Let's say you are a salesman and you sell computers. I am assuming you are American. Say you are trying to sale some computers to some Asians, well say they want to discuss it over drinks. So of course you say ok I mean according how bad you want to sell. Well it is custom for Asians to look away when they consume alcohol they look away and see it as disrespectful. Well would you participate? I would. To make some money. While looking at each other while drinking is not a problem in our countries in theirs it is a big deal. In this case Paul is just doing what he is used too. This would have been a normal thing in Paul's case. Remember not all sacrifices were for sin.
  10. SnakeLord Valued Senior Member

    Was god dead? No.

    So.. gods soul floated off somewhere? In the meantime this 'shell', created by that omnipotent being, lay down on a slab of rock doing bugger all, (what you would consider 'death'). And that in your opinion was worth anything?

    I would not dispute that, but you're not really doing what you state you can do. Several times now I have watched you make it up out of your head instead of using the bible, (i.e Adam and Eve could only do good - this is not supported by the bible at all.. what is supported you have conveniently ignored; that they had no knowledge of good or evil until they had eaten the fruit). I have no qualms with you using scripture, in fact I'd prefer it if you started doing so.

    But then it is of no worth to anything. Like I said, he might aswell have just said "look folks, you're all assholes but I forgive you". Why faff about with temporary suicide?

    It was a question. When people sacrificed animals do you think those animals got up and walked again a few days later, or indeed that their souls wafted off somewhere?

    Ok. So basically what you're telling me is that the "consequences of our actions" is that a god will come down and kill himself, (but then be up and peachy a couple of days later)? I wouldn't exactly call that severe.. amusing maybe.

    Back in the day this god would strike down anyone that went against him. Plagues, firebombs, floods, you name it.. Now he kills himself, (without actually killing himself), instead and thinks anyone will learn anything from that?

    Ok we agree.. he was alive.

    Tell me.. was the "body" ever alive? According to most theists it isn't, its just housing for you, the soul. If we now concur that the 'body' isn't alive to begin with, how can it ever die?

    Now we do, yeah.. because Adam ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil and got knowledge of good and evil.

    You're being silly. You have no knowledge of good or evil. You cannot make the distinction of what is or isn't good. You might do things that are good to those with knowledge of good and evil, but you wouldn't know they were good and frankly nor would you care. To then 'disobey' isn't something chosen with knowledge of that choice unless they have knowledge of good and evil and then the choice becomes and educated one.

    Says who and why?

    And Saddam killing people was carrying out his justice. What is your point?

    You did where I quoted. It's a common theist tactic.

    Kindly explain to why a god would want you to kill a cow in the first place. What does it serve? He already knows who loves him, who has faith and who will be obedient.. the cows death is utterly meaningless.

    You can say 'period' all you want, the argument still supports the statement that if the sacrifice was "not acceptable" then it becomes need on part of the being demanding the sacrifice.

    Point out where..

    Fine.. Those two words are: "I expected". What now?

    I might aswell point out the error though, (although this is largely irrelevant to anything)..

    I said: "What my wife has to do with this I'll never know", to which you directly responded: "you brought her up".

    Now, before telling me to pay attention, how about you do the same?

    I would assume so. As for if I were to know she does.. what can I tell you, she kills a cow for me on weekends. Gotta love that burning flesh smell, it really pleases godly noses.

    You're arguing my case. You don't "need" a pool and as such you don't go and shoot someone when you don't get one - it is of little consequence. If you were starving, (you needed to eat), you wouldn't hesitate to kill someone, probably even eat that someone if the situation was so dire.

    No, you don't need it - you need what you need, (which was not what was offered). I need a swimming pool, (don't let the claims of English weather fool you). When a guy comes to make it I tell him I need it to be 6ft by 6ft. If he doesn't make it those dimensions then he has not fulfilled my needs and he gets a slap round the head with last nights bottle of red.

    The answer varies. Chimps for instance do have hands. However, this is still inconsequential. Your question is also pointless... You are unable to change colours like a chameleon can. The reason for this is because you're not a chameleon, you're a human.. You're both still animals from a human classification perspective.

    They "knew" neither good or evil. The things that they happened to do just weren't considered evil by him upstairs. What you should therefore be saying is that "all they did happened to be good until they did that which happened to be bad". Either way they are still completely unaware of the concept of either.


    A baby knows neither good or bad. Is it that childs responsibility if it drinks a bottle of bleach? No my friend, that would be the parents responsibility.

    If you had absolutely no knowledge of good or evil - and thus could not make a distinction concerning smoking then no, it isn't your fault if you happen to have a ciggie.

    Then by rights you shouldn't have made the claim.

    A) I said discussions evolve, I said nothing about minds wandering.

    B) I have no issue with discussions evolving and thus you're wasting time trying to "help me".

    C) You made the claim. Stop trying to wiggle your way out of it.
  11. Warrior61 I saw the Light Registered Senior Member

    Luke 23:43 "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."
    Death- your soul leaving your body, normally your heart stops beating and you no longer breathe.

    Because He doesn't stay dead it makes it worthless? It only required death. WE WOULDN'T HAVE UNDERSTOOD THAT! WE WOULD HAVE KEPT BEING DISOBEDIENT! WE WOULD NEVER LEARN OUR LESSON>

    Animals do not have souls.

    The wrath of God is the consequence. Jesus took our place.

    Yes your body is alive, how could it die if it wasn't alive?

    If you say that the only way we could have chosen to disobey we would have had to have disobeyed before. That doesn't make any sense. They had knowledge of disobedience they didn't fully understand Good and Evil until they actually did the latter. They had to do Good it was their only option.

    Genesis 3:3
    but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden and you must not touch it, or you will die.'

    They were told what to do and what not to do. The choice to obey or to disobey. For a while they obeyed, which is good. So all they knew was obedience or Good.

    Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death....

    God just follows through on his promise. He is the Judge. He is the only one who knows and the wisest. He is the authority.

    When there is a person without sin give me a ring untill then God is the only proper judge. Plus He created us He can do whatever He wants. What makes it right, well 1 John 1:5 ...God is light; in Him there is no darkness at all.

    Notice I said "where else." Else being the key word. You sounded like it was my regular cop out.

    I'm not to going to say it is meaningless because it would be obedience. Why kill a cow? I do not know.

    Ok. Lets try again. Need. The only person in need is the person giving the sacrifice. We need a sacrifice.

    Psalm 51:15-17
    15 O Lord, open my lips,
    That my mouth may declare Your praise.
    16 For You do not delight in sacrifice, otherwise I would give it;
    You are not pleased with burnt offering.
    17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;
    A broken and a contrite heart, O God, You will not despise.

    See more to the sacrifice. You are looking too much into what is being given than why it is being given.

    You "acknowledged" her. Sorry. I could see how that could sound crazy.

    You know she loves you by actions. This was why I brought it up. We obey God out of love. If that includes Him telling us to sacrifice then so be it.

    God wants us to turn to Him, this is why He doesn't force us to. He does not need us to. You said He needed but He doesn't.

    The point was a need you cant go without a want you can. Addressing your

    LOL. I really do not know what else to say. I mean if you want to be labeled on the same level as a chimp and a chameleon then go ahead. I just think it is silly.

    I have addressed this. So to know good you have to know bad, but the only way to know is to do it?

    Ok but the baby doesn't know the consequence, however Adam and Eve did. Your analogy makes no sense in this case.

    My analogy was stupid, but my point was that they had the means of making a moral decision. They had some knowledge of disobedience, or evil. How are they not responsible.

    ok Will be more careful next time. I am all for debating that just not now though.

    I am sorry but you got my point.
  12. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member


    Why do you think this?

  13. Satyr Banned Banned

    God said so.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Well…not God directly…God through his emissaries….who were….men, speaking on God’s behalf….by writing a book…and who were ….holy and ”good’ and…spoke the ….”truth”…whatever that means, because mommy said so….and daddy believes this also…..and all my retard friends, who are just like me, also believe in the same thing.

    See how “special” Christians are?
    No arrogance there, it’s just a matter of fact. They have souls and animals don’t.
    God exists and he gives a damn about them.

    His cousin’s brother’s nephew’s second wife’s brother’s friend…..Satyr…
  14. SnakeLord Valued Senior Member

    I'll go into detail on one of your later comments, but the point here is that the "soul" is you. Once it 'leaves' the body, the body is what you would classify as dead, and yet you cannot show anything to suggest that the 'body' was ever alive, because it only functions due to the alive bit, (the soul).

    When a snail dies, you'd probably consider its 'shell' as being dead, but the shell was never alive - it just housed that which was alive. By the same token can it not be said that the body is just a shell - the alive bit would be what you would call a soul?

    You need to explain why it "required" death. What is wrong with just saying "you're forgiven"? You have stated that:


    But this doesn't mean anything. Is it not a religiously held fact that all humans are still sinners - and thus disobey at times? So what lesson has mankind learnt exactly? All that has seemingly happened is that god has killed himself and by doing so justified mankind being shitheads whenever they want - because, by that supposed death - they are automatically forgiven for being shitheads. Slamming on your caps key doesn't change anything - you need to show how mankind has, since his "death", stopped being disobedient.

    Support this claim. Let me guess.. you didn't mean to say it and can't be bothered explaining?

    So.. god gets angry when people do things he doesn't want them to, but because he felt bad about whacking people for their crimes he just whacked himself and that appeases his anger? He's certainly an odd fella I'll give him that.


    Your body would function without a soul? (Because the body itself is alive)? In such instances what is it that is 'alive' in the body? As for "how could it die if it wasn't alive".. we're asking the same question in different ways, just swap a few 'if's' around. You claiming that the body is "alive" means that if the soul should bugger off into some other realm that the body would continue living. If the body "dies" the second the soul leaves then it is apparent to state that the living part is actually the soul, the body is just a vessel for that soul to inhabit, (just like a snail shell).

    You're not listening. With no knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve have no possible way of making the distinction. god/satan.. you couldn't tell which was good or evil because you have no knowledge of good and evil. You couldn't listen to ones rules about what to do because you could not discern whether it was a good thing to do or not.

    Support your claim.

    By the very fact that they, according to theists, did evil - your statement is shown to be false.

    Which makes no difference to a being that has no knowledge of good or evil. The threat "you will die" is meaningless to a being that doesn't know what death is and cannot discern whether death is a bad thing or not.

    How do you know he's "wisest"? You ever met the guy? What is he's an incompetent?

    Thou shalt not kill...

    Your god has done that more than every single being in the universe in all of history put together. By his own commandments he is the biggest of all sinners. You and he just excuse him for doing it, for no good reason..

    I've heard that before, and I find it not only quite naive but rather disgusting.

    Notice I mentioned it being a regular "theist" tactic, not a regular Warrior61 tactic.

    Speak for yourself, don't try and include me in it. Thanks.

    I'm looking at both. At the end of the day what is being given is a dead cow.. it's surely worthless to an omnipotent sky fairy. It is being given because an omnipotent sky fairy is demanding you to do so, although why this sky fairy is doing that is anyones guess.. and it is still equally pathetic.

    I love my wife dearly.. I could sit here doing absolutely nothing for her, but my feelings remain the same. Given that my wife is omniscient she will know that I love her regardless to me sitting on my ass doing nothing. I could not burn cows, not chop a bit of my peewee off, work on weekends, smoke pot, and bonk prostitutes.. but as an omniscient being my wife would still know how much I love her. Demanding me to kill a cow when she already knows exactly how much I love her is a worthless demand. She could say to me; "Snake, go mow the lawn".. I could respond with a "no", and nothing has changed.. She still knows exactly how much I love her. Mowing the lawn or killing a cow does not improve my love in any way whatsoever. As non-omniscient beings we often 'test' those around us with such petty things thinking that obedience means we love them and disobedience means we don't. It's utter nonsense, and a sign of serious insecurity.

    If a god needs to know we love him then not only is he very insecure but he's also not omniscient.

    9/11 instantly springs to mind. What you're saying is deeply disturbing.

    Doesn't force? Have you ever read the old testament?

    How so? It wouldn't surprise me if most chimps led a more eventful, worthy life than you do - where is your issue? Are you that petty that you would scoff at a chimp merely because.. what? It eats bananas and says "ooh ooh"? Do not think it's any different for you. Come out with me one night and I'll show you how we are pretty identical in the way we do things. Watch men dancing around women in a nightclub.. Look at how they move - the chimp-like gestures. Look at how when you're sitting at home with the missus you'll start playing with her hair - picking bits out of it etc. Look at how most humans when they wipe their bum or blow their nose actually look at the 'product' much the same as chimps do etc etc..

    The list is endless. You're trying to separate them because? You honestly think you are better, different or more deserving of life?

    As a result of the 'fall', we know the difference between good and evil without having to do either. We're not talking about us, we're talking about Adam and Eve - two people with no knowledge of good and evil. The only way anything could be either good or evil is if they had knowledge of good and evil and someone had defined what was good and what was evil.

    Sure it does, the parent said to it; "Don't drink the bleach or you'll die". It didn't know what death was and didn't understand whether dying was a good or bad thing.

    Support your claim. It seems you're making this up - which isn't the way to do things. The bible disagrees with you and god disagrees with you.
  15. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    It is a contradiction, plain and simple. God is described as both wanting and not wanting the animal sacrifice. In a similar way He is described as being, not the author of confusion in one place, and yet also the perpetrator of confusion in another. On another topic, in one place, He does not punish the children for the sins of their fathers, but then in other scriptures He does exactly that very thing. The Church is divided and torn apart because the source of their truth, the Bible, is divided on as many topics.

    I will have to study this passage more closely!
  16. Warrior61 I saw the Light Registered Senior Member

    Ok the body being a shell is different. You got the understanding of how a soul and the body with your analogy but the shell is far different from a human body. The body while it is a vessel for the soul, is separate from what you said, as the actual person.

    We are still sinners. We would never understand the severity of disobedience if there were no consequences, and slamming on my caps key doesn't change anything. I expressed my frustration of repeating myself. The need for sacrifice. Could God have just said 'you're forgiven?' I say no. We wouldn't have understood. You said you had kids. Can you just say "It's ok" everytime? They will never understand the severity of the crime right.

    OK. Let me stop avoiding this debate. Animals do not have a soul. They have no understanding of morality and will not live after this world. There is an obvious difference between us and them, for instance, we kill animals to eat them and there is no problem. If we kill a human to eat them we go to prison.

    That is what it sounds like. The Son, Jesus, took the wrath of the Father. More like wacking his Son. Oh so now I am saying that I am polytheistic. No I believe in three persons one God.

    I concur, however I haven't seen where the body continues to live without a soul. I see where you are coming from. "Live" and "life" seem to be where we get mixed up. I am saying that the body functions because of the soul. So life depends on the soul. I have a problem explaining what I am thinking.

    I am listening just not understanding most likely. If they had no knowledge then how did they make a decision?

    Unless you knew what was good was the list of rules, or in this case obedience to God right?

    Eve responded to Satan saying that God said not to. When Satan said not to she obviously saw something wrong with it. Does this not indicate some understanding of disobedience? GENESIS 3:3

    I am saying if they weren't disobeying then they were obeying.

    Where does it say they had no understanding of death or what a bad thing was.

    If I say He is God then that would give Him the title.
    No good reason is a matter of perspective. God said the punishment for disobedience was death.

    See I find it comforting because I believe He knows what He is doing, but your not concerned with feelings so why should I care about yours?

    See me saying that was just to show how irrelevent you saying that was.

    Again unnecessary because you got my point.

    A. It isn't worthless. I am trying to show how it is actually worth something but the only way for you to get that would be to see God in a whole new way which I am also trying to do.
    2. The sacrifice of an animal was symbolic. It was set up for us to show our faith.
    D. Pathetic? Your opinion again.

    You still didn't answer the question. How do you know your wife loves you or anyone for that matter. You again confuse God's need with want. It is our need to show our love for God. We also want to. Also in this case 'we' does not include you. He is not insecure. How would you feel if your children did not love you.

    Yes and He did not force.

    So then would you please be kind to tell me then how you would react to a grown man if he was to crap on the floor and then proceed to throw that crap at you. You already said you would fight a guy for not doing a job correctly. I am scared to know your reaction.

    Don't you every time you consume meat?

    You are trying to put the blame on God saying they can not be punished because they did not know. Did they fully understand, no but obviously they had some idea of what not to do.

    You left that out of the analogy. If you told a grown man that would there be a difference. You are first saying Adam and Eve but now you are saying a baby when there is a clear difference. Please make up your mind.

    They had an IDEA of something wrong. Something other than obedience. Obviously.

    Thank you,
    His son,
  17. Warrior61 I saw the Light Registered Senior Member

    God is wanting a sacrifice because of a broken heart. The point of the sacrifice again is intent. It is not confusion, it makes sense. David is looking at the heart of the issue. This is David addressing the why.

    Thank you,
    His son,
  18. Warrior61 I saw the Light Registered Senior Member

    Because it makes sense to me.
  19. Warrior61 I saw the Light Registered Senior Member

    Are you serious. In one place you say you do not discuss with Christians because they are idiots and yet you still make a post about it. I question your ability to debate with them not the fact that you say you won't which you have. Now you want to answer a question for me. LOL The truth is you do not have the ability. SankeLord thinks I am an idiot but continues to talk and discuss me with the purpose of trying to prove me wrong. I do not know if he is trying to help me or just wants to prove me wrong but atleast he debates. You stand there and point your finger and give your opinion which truthfully holds no authority. You make your own people look bad. Yes I will say the Bible says so but I believe it to be true. This is so sad that you would actually act like that. Believe in God or not you sound so sad.

    Thank you,
    His son,
  20. SnakeLord Valued Senior Member

    Not true at all. I don't think you're an idiot, and I only discuss because it keeps the brain active and it's good fun.

    I'll get to the other post later, got some stuff to do

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  21. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Do you think the same about me snakester?
  22. SnakeLord Valued Senior Member

    So again, will the body continue to survive without being inhabited by a soul? If so, how would these people differ from those with souls?

    I have to disagree and tried to explain why earlier. The consequence is that god kills himself and I am instantly forgiven. I don't personally consider that severe, to be honest it just makes it easier to be nasty.

    Finally we agree. Do notice that you said need, not want.

    Here you are downplaying gods supposed omnipotence, indeed you're almost claiming him to be incompetent. We can happily understand without the need for anything to die if he so chooses. One click of the fingers and we all understand perfectly. What you are left with are countless needless deaths - of animals, (which you seemingly do not care about), humans, (which die continuously because of gods demands - no, you cannot offer anything to say that religious killers are not getting their commands from god), to god himself.

    Well I've never had to kill myself. In honesty my kids do not misbehave. They are only like this because I talk to them - I have never punished them. For me talking seems to work perfectly well every single time. Why can your omnipotent god not do what I can accomplish rather easily?

    1) What supports the claim that they have no soul? (other than science which would show nothing has a soul).

    2) Many animals do indeed display moral behaviour.

    3) How are you more special or worthy of a second life, a third life etc than any animal?

    The majority of animals do not eat their own kind. Some do certainly, (and generally the young get eaten when they would end up a territorial rival). Of course this is very similar to humans who have been killing others over territory for eons, (even their own kids in some cases).

    If you believe in "one god" then god killed himself to appease himself. There's no way of arguing against that. The minute you turn that "one" into three and try and make out that one appeases his anger by killing the other, the minute you no longer believe in "one" god.

    Kinda like an mp3 player.. It has the ability to play music, but without the batteries it doesn't do sweet bugger all. However, the mp3 player is nothing without the batteries - ergo completely dead, not alive.

    What would you decide if you had no idea of whether smoking was good or bad? You wouldn't say no to the cigarette because of it's harm to your health and you wouldn't say yes because you thought it looked good. A decision can be reached, even if you choose to roll a dice to decide, but that decision is not an educated one - it's heads or tails.. Neither is of consequence to anything.

    So you have this magical list of what is and isn't good. Without any knowledge of good or evil what that list says is of no consequence to anything. Is it a good or bad thing to pay attention to the list?

    The last sentence is wrong. To repeat something you've been told does not imply that you see anything wrong or right in it. Do note than when she repeated what god had said she didn't even know she was naked. Her bits were out for all to see and yet she was none the wiser. Like a child, running round with it's bits on show completely unawares of it or that sticking its fingers in a plug socket is a seriously bad move. That same child can still repeat things it's parents say. Why, my young nephew says "fuck" and "shit" and all manner of swear words without understanding what they mean, that they are considered rude and wrong or anything else. He still says them happily while his little peewee dangles in the breeze.

    They weren't doing either through knowledge of what they were doing.

    As god attests to in Genesis, Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil until they had eaten the fruit. In saying so they clearly had no concept of death being a bad thing. Furthermore, it is oft said that there was no death in the garden of eden, (although I personally disagree on the basis that many animals require the death of others in order to survive themselves - unless we were to claim that all T-rex's were veggies). If there was no death, Adam and Eve would have no knowledge of what death was. You could explain it and say: "well, your soul, (which is you), leaves your body and you float off somewhere".. Of course it could then be argued that death doesn't mean death because you're still technically alive, just in different form - and perhaps a better form considering you no longer need to eat or defecate or sleep etc etc - and so perhaps death in itself would be quite good. However, they still could not make an educated decision on whether being dead was good or bad.

    I'm sorry, I don't follow..

    That hardly justifies it. I knew a slave that disobeyed the commands of his keeper and escaped from his confines. The punishment according to the keeper was death - and when caught the man was summarily executed. The act is not justified purely because someone has said what he will do.

    Oh I do show my care for feelings at times, but most certainly not in a discussion regarding what is or isn't true. "Feelings" should not be a part of that discussion.

    Actually no, I didn't. You said we needed a sacrifice, I disagree.. We don't. You personally might but that is of no consequence to what anyone else "needs".

    Can't I just imagine a god that doesn't see a point in killing cows? Ok, they "moo" too much for my liking, but killing them for the mere sake of it? Not my style - and there's no way I could ever personally consider it of any value to anything, especially when commanded by an omnipotent, omniscient all loving being that could think of a gazillion better ways of getting the job done.

    See, my god allows people to be human without feeling the need to drown them, demand sacrifice or kill himself. Mozzies are still stoning people to death and flying planes into buildings because they don't want to disobey their god, the jews are still slicing a bit of their penis off, (without asking consent of that person), because they don't want to disobey their god. Not because of love, but because of downright fear of what happens if they disobey. Fear is not the way to run a system.. my god knows that, seemingly yours does not.

    Out of interest you'll find a good couple of hundred times when god says he wants man to fear him, and very very few where he even mentions a want for man to love him.

    My god, being omniscient, already knows the answer. He also has issue with people having to believe with no knowledge.. it's a pathetic endeavour that should not be expected from a species that naturally requires evidence. Believing for the mere sake of it is somewhat of a letdown to my god. He wants people to choose to love him because they "know" him, not because they "guess" what he might be like.


    I did answer.. I said I assume she does. She might not, such is life.. 2 out of every 3 marriages fail - the majority due to a partner bonking someone else. All the while that person was sitting there thinking the partner loved them. It is so easy for man to be deceived.. by other humans let alone anything else. If you think people should love and worship a god with no knowledge of that god, who is to say you are not in the middle of the grandest deception? You couldn't begin to tell me anything about this being. You rely on the word of shepherds to claim what this being is like - and yet what if he intends to burn you all because he's a nasty omnipotent bugger? The only way forward is to get actual knowledge of this being - and yet if it refuses and continues to state that you must believe it merely on faith? What has it got to hide? (Note that right about now most theists, [I didn't say 'you'], would state that to show itself would be to remove free will. That's simple nonsense because knowledge of somethings existence doesn't mean you cannot choose to hate it, pretend it doesn't exist [theists do that rather well with evolution] etc etc).

    What if he's actually just testing to see who would be silly enough to believe something for the sake of it, or worse because they're afraid of burning? You could never say he isn't because you'll never have that knowledge until you're dead and it's too late.

    Can these things not just be said, or felt? He's omnisicient. Just think "i love you dearly" and he'd know about it. Killing a cow, holding poisonous snakes, spearing yourself with metal rods etc seems kinda pointless. Would he love you more if you killed a cow for him?

    Dare I say that my emotional needs would suffer? If I didn't need to be loved it would be utterly inconsequential. Alas I am just a faulty human and cannot help having those needs.

    Surely you must have heard of people putting crap in a plastic bag, setting fire to it and throwing it through your postbox or perhaps putting it on the doorstep and then ringing the bell? While I find the humour of the whole thing a tad 'off', everyone gets their jollies in different ways - including chimps. Man you can see the smile on the chimps face when it pees on you at the zoo.

    Seriously though, I have heard of worse things.. Theres people that poke spears through themselves, staple their testicles to desks, stick bottles up their [censored], or if that's not good enough spend some time watching jackass. And yet for some reason you think a chimp throwing a piece of shit is justification to say that humans are better than them? Do me a lemon.

    I personally wouldn't be too impressed if a man threw poo at me or if a chimp through poo at me. Neither is an indication that humans are better than chimps.

    Not really, no.

    Let's talk fox hunting.. 50 hounds, 50 people, 50 horses, some smoke bombs, some guns, a nice blowy horn thingy and 50 shiny red coats vs 1 fox. On occasion the fox still outwits those 50 hounds, 50 people, 50 horses, smoke bombs and guns.

    Most of the time however the fox does get whacked... only because of the 50 hounds, 50 horses, smoke bombs and guns. The 50 people are smegging useless and would be hard pressed to catch a cockroach let alone anything else.

    The blame would always fall on the creator - seeings as man did not create himself and thus is not responsible for having the urge to choose wrong - but that is inconsequential here given that in this instance it is clear, and attested to by god, that they had no knowledge of good or evil before eating the fruit and thus cannot be held liable for eating the fruit.

    But they didn't. "Obviously" is not a valid argument. The bible says they didn't, god says they didnt. That's all there is to it.

    One step at a time.

    Actually it's quite common for people to label Adam and Eve as "like children", (Visitor does it regularly). The similarity between Adam and a child is closer than Adam and an adult. For starters adults, (unless retarded), are aware that they are naked, babies are not. Babies also have no knowledge of good or evil and thus make the analogy pertinent.

    You keep saying "obviously" but refuse to support it. How did they have an idea of something wrong without the required knowledge to allow them to have such ideas?
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2007
  23. Warrior61 I saw the Light Registered Senior Member

    This is how I explain it and I do apologize for my sorry job of explaining and appreciate you baring with me. Could a body operate without a soul? I do not know mostly because I have never seen one without one. There are certain things a body can do after death such as hair growth. Like you brought up the about the "person." To answer your question, I would say no. When the soul leaves the body(death) then your body no longer functions.

    The consequence of sin is the wrath of God. The consequence of God's Love is Christ dying for us. You still see the consequence and understand the severity.

    Look at my response, as I said before our need. Again I blame myself for lack of the frickin awesome ability to explain. I am working on it.

    Downplaying? I do not say God can do anything because God can't sin or die. God can do all things necessary. One click of the fingers would not be us figuring it out for ourselves would it? That was the point and you have gotten it that the only other way would be for God to just click and change it for us. He wants us to Love Him by willingly. I have not once said I do not care about animals, however it is clear I see humans above animals. I have also explained, or so I thought, how they are not needless. Again if God kills someone then they are not innocent. God can kill humans. He is the one who administers justice. The whole ethical thing is centered around God. Obedience versus Disobedience.

    I could understand how your kids are not very disobedient and I am sure that you explain to them the situation however that is your form of communicating to them the severity of the crime. To answer your question it is the same reason a murderer doesn't get a good talking too.

    Scripture. When God breathed the breath of life into humans. That is in my understanding I know scripture holds no authority for some but for me it does. What supports the claim? There is something distinctively different between us and animals, I tried to explain it earlier but I didn't do a good job. We have some freedom that animals do not. Science could not show we do not have a soul because science can only prove what is tangible and a soul is not tangible.

    Yes I agree but notice I said an understanding. They no if they do this they will be punished or something bad will happen. Such as a dog if trained to kill people will make no distinction between the innocent and guilty it will only do what it is taught.

    My only answer would be because God said so.

    I am not talking about on kind. You said we are equal us and animals. This doesn't address what I said.

    Ok I see what you are saying. Again God was not dead when Jesus died.

    I would concur. Notice though the body would be completely dead.

    I don't see how you answered the question. If they had no knowledge how did they make a decision?

    Unless your idea isof good is obedience and evil is disobedience.

    She was told not to do this or you will die. When confronted with the decision she brought up the consequence associating the decision with the consequence. This shows that she had some knowledge of disobedience, by eating of the tree she would now understand that evil is disobedience and good is obedience.

    They had knowledge of what they were doing you would question did they associate that with good. In retrospect did they knew it was obedience.

    How could they have not associate it with a bad thing? Eve hesitated, why?

    The title God would by default make Him the wisest and smartests or He wouldn't be God.

    If that person was God it would.

    Why shouldn't they?

    See I would say we do because that would be the truth in my view.

    You associate fear with a bad thing. The fear is out of respect. The last bit is just plain disagreement, because I would see lots of God's actions as out of love where you would just see it as scaring them.

    The sacrifice was for us, it benefitted us. It pleased God but it was mainly for us. If you turn to Exodus to the story of the golden calf. When Moses comes down they are giving sacrifices and peace offerings. This was a thing that they did to show there feelings.

    Another example of natural evolution of a debate: agreeing.

    So you married her off of an assumption. One second you want scientific proof but in this case you just believe or assume. You put your whole life in an assumption and then question me for puting my life in, what you would call, an assumption. Then you move on to say that the information from sheperds is not credible. Well theses sheperds did some pretty remarkable things. Then you move with the audacity to say that it isn't "actual knowledge." Please by all means explain the differenct between "actual knowledge" and knowledge. My point is you know if some one loves you are not because they will show you. Animal Sacrifices, helping my momma bring in the groceries, and giving my girl friend, who loves me, a present is how we show our Love. If you thought about it you could probably prove your wife's love for you.

    Unless I believe the Bible to be true and I believe the people who have met Him, heard Him, and seen Him then I could say I had the knowledge.

    You really wouldn't know if you needed love because you couldn't tell the difference. Rememvber your idea of deception. So you would feel crappy?

    Never gotten close enough for it to pee on me and hopefully I won't.

    Amusement can change. You yourself decide what is amusing and what is not. I have seen jack[censored] and laugh. Why? I laugh at idiots all the time. However to answer my own question. If someone was to throw crap at me we would brawl. I might get my butt kicked but they would understand that I do not appreciate it. Notice though amusement wasn't in question it was your reaction. Your idea of what is ok and what is not.

    Ok. Fair enough. I see where it does though.

    That doesn't make sense. Bullcrap. LOL You eat to keep living. By killing something to eat it you obviously see your existence more deserving.

    Upon doing evil they had knowlege. They had their first confrontation with guilt. They were given the ability to choose, obviously since they did so, and told what to do, being the positive, and what not to do being the negative. They had an understanding of obedience and disobedience. If you tell your kid what not to do and they do it then they are held liable.

    What proof do you have that the Bible says they had no knowledge of what not to do.

    1.God told them what to do. Genesis 1:28 and 2:16 check
    2.God told them what not to do. Genesis 2:17 and 3:3 check
    3.Eve willingly said what God told them not to do. Genesis 3:3 check
    4.This is obvious. check

    My bad.

    For starters a baby doesn't speak like Adam and Eve. Are you serious they are not babies. Their actions prove this.


    Obviously is said because Eve points this out clearly. Understanding something wrong and evil is different. They disobeyed and now understood evil.

    Thank you,
    His son,

Share This Page