Adstar:
just like atheists mock and denigrate Christians who are giving a serious message of God are worthy of being put to death.
Milkmoon:
And is the vise versa true? Are Christians that spit on non-believers or mock people of different beliefs, such as reincarnation, worthy of being put to death? It's alright for you - before you reply, I don't mean you or me specifically, I'm speaking colloquially - to insult, mock, and denigrate us, our Gods (eg. Hindu Gods) or our beliefs (Neopaganism, Athiesm, etc), but it's the guillotine for you if you dare criticize ours. Is that it?
First of all Christians are not called to put people to death. Don’t get Christianity and islam mixed up.
Secondly if a Christian does spit on and denigrate someone they are giving a message of God to then yes they are worthy of death.
Milkmoon:
Besides, if Christians deny homosexuals their rights, attempt to outlaw reproductive rights such as abortion, attempt to deny women from obtaining equal rights, and try to convert others and impose their beliefs (Biblical or not) on other people, how can they honestly expect to hold out for universal popularity anyway?
I am a Christian. I do not deny homosexuals rights. I do not attempt to outlaw abortion. I do not attempt to deny woman their rights. I do not try to impose my beliefs on other people.
Remember we are discussing things between you and me. Not between you and me and everyone who calls themselves a Christian.
Giving the message that the homosexual sexual act is an abomination to God is not denying any rights to any homosexual. The authorities in the nations deny or allow what they will. I am not a part of that power structure.
Giving the message that abortion is murder is not denying a woman the option of going to have an abortion. Again it is the laws of each national authority that decides what rules apply in relation to abortion.
And the same goes for all other messages you get from me. My kingdom is the Kingdom of Jesus and it is not of this world, Yet....
I do not seek to play the power games in this world, I do not vote. I believe the nations of this world are under the control of satan. So I take no part in playing politics. I give a message let each person decide how they react to it.
Milkmoon:
Isn't it God's job to set an example for us human beings?
I don't expect God to turn his cheek, but when looking at this from a broader perspective, if all God's rules for our morality don't apply to him, does that mean God basically has no morality?
If God had no morality then He would not bother giving moral guidance. Clearly ending a life lawfully is Not Immoral.
I trust in God’s guidance and I am fortunate that I have been given some understanding as to why Jesus called upon us to love our enemies and not to carry out judgements on others. Most christians I talk to don’t. Most of them believe in the dogma, justifiable war. A teaching in direct rebellion against the teachings of Jesus. They have in fact made for themselves through this dogma (and others) another “jesus”, whom they worship. In doing this they cease to be believers of Jesus and therefore have no atonement for their sins.
Milkmoon:
But where does it say in the scriptures to not beat them excessively? You tell me. That's my whole point. You are free to interpret. If you beat your children excessively, apparently, you are not going against Biblical teachings. This site makes it clear that uncalled for abuse is against the Bible What does the Bible say about child abuse?, and it did placate me somewhat, but this is not in regards to actual laws against discipline. And what of the countless times children are told to be obedient to their parents and how they are to be killed if they disobey, rebel, or belittle their parents although there is no mention of what the parents were actually like and how they treated their child?
Nice link. I was thinking of one of those scriptures but I was finding it hard to find it.
Ok I believe God knows all things. He knows if parents have abused their children by anger motivated violent beating or in cutting words that do leave life long scares. I assure you I know what it is like to be on the receiving end of cutting words. I was made to feel like dirt from my dad. I am quite sure I would be dead now by suicide if I had not found a true loving Father in God. But again The Message of Jesus is for me to be willing to forgive those who have done me wrong.
Milkmoon:
Even if the guidance of scripture mentions the word 'rod' and allows people freedom to translate whether it means that figuratively, literally, or literally but with a reed-like rod. The quote from Proverbs says that 'he will not die'. You don't need to die from being beaten with a rod. You might just break a bone or two.
Wow I think you have totally misunderstood what the passage is saying.
Proverbs 23
13 Do not withhold correction from a child,
For if you beat him with a rod, he will not die.
14 You shall beat him with a rod,
And deliver his soul from hell.
The part that says “he will not die” is not saying he will not die from being hit by a rod. It is not talking about death from a beating. The two verses go hand in hand. “he will not die” is referring to what we call the second death that happens to those who go into the Lake of fire. Displine/correction teaches a child that doing wrong leads to pain the child will then seek to avoid doing wrong. Seeking to avoid wrong sets them up for the message Of God that encourages us to resist doing wrong. It also sets us up to accept forgiveness. Because we know being forgiven by God keeps us from eternal suffering.
Adstar:
If they believe that the teaching is right and good but they sin because of their faulty human state then they are still forgiven. But if they don't really believe what they preach but it is only a job they do to secure a living then go out and commit adultery then they are indeed Hypocrites and not forgiven.
Milkmoon:
This is where I don't understand why you attack me for using the word 'mistake'.
This word mistake is causing us a problem, isn’t it. Why because we seem to have different interpretations of what the word means.
You seem to think that mistake = wrongdoing that one regrets.
I think mistake means = something a person does wrong that they never intended to do.
Your Mistake seems to be closer to my Repentant. To be repentant is to regret a wrong one has done.
Milkmoon:
Saying that people sin because of their faulty human state makes it look like they don't hold any responsibility for their actions, that they could simply blame it on their 'faulty human state'. If they believed the teaching was right and good, but did it anyway, for them, this would be called a mistake.
Yes by your definition “mistake” but my definition Repentant.
Milkmoon: Saying that someone sinned because of their faulty human state means you they don't really take responsibility for their actions.
Responsibility is taken when one feels repentant for their sins. Even though we are faulty and therefore are hopelessly destined to sin we can still agree with God that sin is bad and regret it.
Adstar:
Willfull sin is not just sin. It is an attitude towards sin. It is pride in ones sin and a spirit of rebelliousness towards Gods will.
Milkmoon:
Very well, but that's not what I meant. I meant someone who continues to drink alcohol, for example, even though they know this is wrong and against the will of God, continue to do it because they do not want to break the habit or believe that God is merciful and will forgive them for their sins?
Poor choice of example. You are getting Christianity mixed up with islam again. It is not a sin to drink alcohol in the bible. It is sin to drink it to a state of drunkenness. Remember the first sign recorded that Jesus did was turn water into wine for a wedding feast.
But lets say your talking about drunkenness. Lets say a Christian is an alcoholic. Addiction is a very powerful thing and some people are more vulnerable to addiction than others. In this case the Christian would still hate the fact that they where an alcoholic and wish they could be free of the addiction but they would continue to abuse alcohol. They would still be forgiven because it was the desire of their flesh that was driving them to sin not the will of their conscience to God. Now if they where wilfully getting drunk and thinking that they could do this and get away with it through the Messiah Jesus I believe they would be in for a shocking revelation at the final judgement. But I stress I am talking about drunkenness/ alcohol abuse. Not the consumption of alcohol itself.
Milkmoon:
They know his decree is right, so according to you, they will still be forgiven, so why should any Christian attempt not to sin then, if they will be forgiven for their sins anyway? From page 3 of this forum, you said
Adstar:
'And I believe once one believes that Jesus has provided atonement for their sins they are forgiven, no need to beg God for mercy on friday saturday or sunday.'
Milkmoon:
And now you said
Adstar:
'If they believe that the teaching is right and good but they sin because of their faulty human state then they are still forgiven'.
Milkmoon:
So if a Christian agrees that God's decree is right and good, then go out and commit all the sins they'd like, they are still forgiven? They can do everything non-believers do, but as long as they believe in God, they get to go to heaven after it instead of hell. Sounds like a pretty good deal.
Again I am trying to explain to you the difference between someone’s WILL and their FAULTY HUMAN STATE. ( i am using caps and bolding not as shouting at you i am simply trying to give as much focus to the words as i can)
One person has a faulty human state, the same person’s will is against their own Faulty human state.
Another person has a faulty human state, that person’s will see’s their faulty human state as being fine and good.
Both people in the flesh are faulty but they have diametrically opposite WILLs. Can you see the difference?
God knows we are ALL in a faulty human state. But has provided a way to justly and freely forgive our faults. But to embrace this WAY in truth Our WILL must be in agreement with God.
So people who are in moral agreement with God, do not go out and “sin all they want” because they don’t WANT to sin. Their WILL does not Want to sin. Yeah they do sin because they are undermined by their faulty human state.
Let me give you an analogy:
Parents take their young girls to their first netball game. Now the little girls are totally un-coordinated, they have not idea about positional awareness, they stumble and don’t pass when they should and when they do pass they often are off target, they commit many fouls and the umpire’s whistle gets a real hard workout. But they are enthusiastic little girls who try their little hearts out and their parents see this and are well pleased with them, not because of all their mistakes but because of their intentions/ their attitude in trying to do their best.
Now the parents represent God and the little Girls represent true Christians.
Adstar:
Christians stand up and declare sodomy an abomination to God and are labelled homophobes for it. When in fact they are giving sure warning of the judgement of God in the hope that some homosexuals will seek embrace the forgiveness of God and be saved.
Milkmoon:
Well these homosexuals obviously do not follow the same beliefs these Christians do.
Oh, let me tell you some homosexuals do believe God and are holding onto the Atonement of the Messiah Jesus as if their eternal live depend on it… and it does.
Milkmoon:
And frankly, as long as they are consenting adults, it's nobody's business what goes on in their beds.
It’s Gods business. What ever goes on in existence is Gods business.
Milkmoon:
And either way, why is sodomy and therefore homosexuality an abomination to God? How are they hurting anybody?
Men was created for woman and woman where created for men. It is a mockery of God’s design to have men engaged in sex with each other. There is nothing natural about homosexuality it runs against Gods law and it even runs against the Darwinian imperative for humans to successfully reproduce and carry on their genes. So on both counts it is an abomination. Again people can believe what they WILL to believe regarding this issue.
Milkmoon:
However, in Genesis, when God was about to destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and Lot was trying to convince the homosexuals to give up their ways, what did he tell them? Genesis 19:8 "Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."
'You can do what you like with them'. Their consent is not given, and Lot gives them the reins to do literally do what they'd like to his daughters. So homosexuality is this horrific, serious sin, but offering your two virgin girls up for rape isn't?
No both are sin. Remember Lot was a human being… not God. Yes Lot sinned when he offered his daughters to the men. Thanks be to God that the two Angels prevented this from happening. Read:
Genesis 19
6 So Lot went out to them through the doorway, shut the door behind him, 7 and said, “Please, my brethren, do not do so wickedly! 8 See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish; only do nothing to these men, since this is the reason they have come under the shadow of my roof.”
9 And they said, “Stand back!” Then they said, “This one came in to stay here, and he keeps acting as a judge; now we will deal worse with you than with them.” So they pressed hard against the man Lot, and came near to break down the door. 10 But the men reached out their hands and pulled Lot into the house with them, and shut the door. 11 And they struck the men who were at the doorway of the house with blindness, both small and great, so that they became weary trying to find the door.
The men wanted to rape the Angels and then they where going to rape Lot. They where not interested in the girls. So the Angels struck them all with blindness and prevented them from doing their WILL.
Milkmoon:
And since we are on the topic of homosexuality, I have something else to say. I read this somewhere, and before you accuse me of plagiarism (which you seem to misunderstand anyway, as using a source that provides specific Biblical quotes on certain topics is not plagiarism) I honestly don't remember where I read this from, but it was a pretty good argument.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10:
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders...
It clearly states here that two of the people who would not be accepted into heaven would be adulterers or homosexual offenders. Correct?
There is a very important word in that verse “wicked”. Wicked sinners are wilful sinners, wickedness points to an attitude to sin. The word would not have been needed if the verse was just talking about people who committed those sins. So it is Not saying that people who commit adultery or homosexual sin shall not enter the kingdom of heaven. It is saying that those who commit these sins with wicked wilful intent shall not enter the kingdom of Heaven. Lets go on with your point.
Milkmoon:
However, in Luke, 16:18 it says that "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."
Yet how many church members have been divorced and remarried, and how many churches actually object to performing a ceremony for someone who remarries? They'd most certainly object to a homosexual marriage, so why not a remarriage either, if it is considered adultery? Why is one sin considered worse than the other, if they were both listed next to each other and both are enough to keep someone out of heaven?
First thing let me quote the more detailed passage when Jesus revealed this.
Matthew 5
31 “Furthermore it has been said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.
So there is just cause for divorce within Christianity. There is also another reason justified reason given for divorce by Paul who gave the Message of Jesus to the gentiles and that was when a believer was married to an un-believer and the un-believer wanted a divorce. The Christian is no longer under the bondage of marriage if the unbeliever wants a divorce.
1 Corinthians 7
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. 15 But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace.
So if a person divorces their partner because of unfaithfulness they can remarry. And if an unbelieving partner divorces their Christian partner. The Christian is no longer under bondage and is free to remarry. But if a Christian gets a divorce for some other reason they are not justified in getting remarried. So I do not agree with any remarriage after an unlawful divorce.
Milkmoon:
I used men in the example because the Bible (and the Quran too) are written from a male perspective. I just went along with it. Of course women also sin when they do this, however another reason I used men as an example was because it's less common to see women ogling men on the street.
Well it does seem that women on average seem to have lower sex drives, but woman in general (there are always exceptions) are far more discrete when doing it and therefore they get busted doing it less often.
Milkmoon:
I was not talking about men ogling women, which as a woman myself, I do find offensive. When I wrote that, I'd quoted you as such "To act to control ones carnal desires means that one must first think of carnal desire within their minds."
What I meant when I said humans are generally sexual creatures, I meant that it doesn't seem logical to say that people never think of desire within their minds. It doesn't seem to matter whether they control it or not, if they think of it for the smallest of seconds before banishing the thought, they are held as guilty of sinning. Lust is a very normal human reaction, I do not say that meaning that people should embrace or accept it. When they feel it, they control it. And didn't you agree that it is noble to resist? I had already explained this after I said that humans were sexual creatures, but you took what I said out of context.
I believe I understand your thoughts. But as a Christian I believe we are all hopeless sinners. Seeking to “bash the thought” demonstrates a WILL against the thought. But the thought was already thought. Therefore the Sin has already been committed. But you see a person who would quickly seek to “bash the thought” already agrees with God that lusting over another person in the street is wrong. Irrespective of that persons religious beliefs (if they have any) They have a spirit for the truth, So when they read Jesus state:
Matthew 5
27 “You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
They will be in agreement with Him. Such people are then drawn more to His teachings. The Message is designed to draw them to salvation.
Adstar:
But to be angry at a sinner justifies Gods wrath upon you. As you judge so shall ye be judged.
Milkmoon:
Justifies God's wrath about me for what? For being angry at the evil, sadistic, and malevolent?
Upon you..
Jesus said:
Matthew 7
2 For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you.
So if one hates a sinner and are not prepared to forgive them their sin. On the day of Judgement God will likewise use the same judgement upon that person. He will say you have sinned, I do not forgive you. That’s why we are told to forgive. Forgiving a sinner is not stating that the sin they committed is good. If someone comes and asks me for forgiveness for a wrong they have done me I am called upon to forgiven them.
3.00am here. Time for me to sleep.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
My Theory On God: Narcissism (And Why Evil Exists)
My Theory On God: Narcissism (And Why Evil Exists)
Adstar:
Anger at theft, good. Anger at the thief not good.
Milkmoon:
But theft cannot exist without the thief. The thief can exist without the theft. Unless they're kleptomaniac and cannot control it, they made a choice in choosing to steal. I might be able to forgive a poor person for stealing food or a bit of money the need to survive, but how about the ultra-rich that steal from other people? The greedy, the swindlers? Do I not have a right to be angry at them?
Jesus calls upon me not to hate them. Especially if they repent of their scams and exploitations and express their sorrow for their wrong doings. I have been forgiven and it is upon me to forgive others. It is like a covenant between me and God. God agrees to forgive me a repentant sinner and i must agree to forgive others who are repentant. God agrees not to carry out judgement upon me and i agree not to carry out judgement upon other people.
Milkmoon:
It's like saying I should be angry at the gun, not the person holding it. A gun cannot fire a bullet by itself, it needs someone to pull the trigger. Why should I be angry at the gun? An inanimate object that could be used for self-defense? Why can't I be angry at the murderer? Likewise, why should I be angry at theft, which is nothing but a word, rather than the actual thief for choosing to define that word?
Because theft is what has caused the suffering, the loss, the injustice of having something taken from you that you have worked for.
Another point i want to make, no thief or rapist or murderer will be forgiven in eternity if they reject the atonement of the Messiah Jesus. If a person has done me wrong and is un-repentant i know that the Judgement of God upon that person is way more than a million times worse that anything i could ever do an act of revenge. So no unrepentant wrongdoer is going to get away with their sin. Because i know this it makes it easier to hand these situations over to God and no take revenge myself. The Bible says (and note carefully the bolded words)
Romans 12
19Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord. 20Therefore "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; If he is thirsty, give him a drink; For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head."
Milkmoon:
So since getting angry with someone labels you a murderer, and is something worth of the death penalty unless you believe in the right message (whichever the 'right' one is), does that mean that murderers would make it to heaven if they believe in God?
Believing in God? No, satan believes in God and he is predestined to be cast into the lake of fire. One must believe God plus be repentant of their sins. plus trust in the atonement of the Messiah Jesus. Then they shall have eternity with God. (I don't believe that will be in heaven but that’s another topic)
Yes a Murderer who came to believe these things and is repentant shall have eternity with God. There is only one unforgivable sin and murder is not it.
I don't know whether you'd follow my line of thinking or not, so let me explain. Anger at a person labels you a murderer. You are forgiven, if you believe. So let's say you are an actual murderer. You believe, are you forgiven? And as I asked above, where do you draw the line? Would a pedophile priest make it to heaven if they believe?
Simple answer Yes a former paedophile can be forgiven through the atonement of the Messiah Jesus. But sexual deviancy is also a sign that the person may well have been given over to a degenerate mind because of their rejection of the love of the truth. So i would have very little hope for a paedophile.
Romans 1
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;
Adstar:
So the Bible says that a debased mind is a sign that the person has rejected the Love of the truth of God.
Milkmoon
But you would also be facing judgement for your unlawful killing of him
My unlawful killing? It is not lawful to kill someone who robs young children of their innocence? How about if I did it to protect not only the child in question, but other children elsewhere who might be future victims?
I would agree with seeking to prevent further attacks on children, i would see to have the person arrested by the authorities. There is no need for me to kill the offender. I would also seek to get that child victim the best treatment to aleviate the trauma that had been caused by their violation.
Adstar:
He would be judged for his sin against the child. But you would also be facing judgement for your unlawful killing of him.
Milkmoon:
So he'd be going to hell for harming innocents, and I would be going to hell for attempting to protect my loved one and the loved ones of other people? How is that even remotely the same?
Wooo back, my quote above was in reply the scenario given originally by you. That was, you where going to kill the violator because of what they had done. Not what they where going to do. You have only just introduced that into the scenario in this post.
Again One can seek to prevent a paedophile violating others by seeking their arrest by the authorities.
Adstar:
As a Christian we are called to give over judgement to God.
Milkmoon:
If what I told you actually happened as opposed to nearly happening, I would not be able to hand my judgement over to God, knowing I could have stopped the man from continuing to damage the lives of young children and didn't, because I handed the matter over to a God who would most likely forgive him if he was a believer or became one. And God wouldn't have protected her or children like her, not in this world. How many countless children does this happen to anyway? And how many times does God intervene? Exactly, none.
You cannot say God has never prevented incidences of child molestation.
Milkmoon:
If God proved that he does care and actually intervened in our lives to destroy wicked people, as he did in the OT, or if he just least made the world a better place where this kind of thing wasn't even though of anyway, I would have faith.
So now you want God to bring forth His wrath upon people? But i many of your posts you have been posting OT verses showing incidences of Gods wrath and calling Him evil for bringing forth His wrath. You cannot have it both ways.
You know that when God ordered the Hebrews to bring His wrath upon the Canaanites one of the sins His wrath was being poured out for was child sacrifice. People in Canaan had been sacrificing their little ones to the pagan god moloch, They had a hollow statue of him made of bronze and under it they had a fire to make the statue glowing hot, they get placed a baby into the hands of the statue and it was burnt to death. The pagan priests would beat drums to drown out the sound of the little ones screams so that the parents of the baby would feel less distress.
If God where to bring His wrath to this world today to kill all the paedophiles he would also kill all the abortionists and everyone who agrees with abortion. Most peoples would face what the Canaanites faced from the Hebrews.
Adstar:
No your not supposed to love sin. Or love someone because of their sin
Milkmoon:
But didn't you say we are to love the sinner and hate the sin?
What i said above is not inconsistent. We are supposed to love other people because they are people like us and because they are loved by God. Not because of their sin or because they are a sinner.
Adstar:
But you should be prepared to forgive someone who repents for their evil doings. Yeah i know i such a case it would be incredibly difficult.
Milkmoon:
It would be more than incredibly difficult. I would never in a million years be able to forgive someone who did that, if they actually did do it. I don't see how anyone could.
Well i cannot say i am surprised, You have rejected the love of the truth and called it evil so i would not expect you to forgive. But as a Christian that is what i am called to do and what i the right thing to do.
Milkmoon:
If you have/had a daughter or sister, would you be prepared to forgive someone like that? How could anyone? It's unnatural.
Well having been in a very close relationships with more than one victim of such abuse (and worse) i can say i believe i would be willing to forgive the ones that abused them.
Milkmoon:
And besides, how could I be forgiving them if I am consoling myself by telling myself that God would carry out judgement on them and would be sending them to hell? That's not truly forgiveness, now is it?
That’s the difference between give an unrepentant offender over to the judgement of God and forgiving a repentant offender. As a Christian i am called not to take revenge upon the unrepentant offender and to forgive the repentant offender. Now i would be sure to talk to the offender who asked for forgiveness about their need to believe Jesus and obtain Gods forgiveness. I would even give warning to the unrepentant offender of Gods judgement to come. Wether or not an offender is forgiven by God, Christians are called upon to forgive when forgiveness is asked of them.
Milkmoon:
And there are some things that are unforgivable.
Well as i have already said. with God there is only one unforgivable sin.
1. I'm not a non-believer. I do believe in God. I think I mentioned this before. I just can't understand what kind of person it would take to make such as messed up world.
Wow... So if you believe in God then it should be clear to you that God made this world and this world is the way it currently is because God allows it to be. So then if you believe God exists then you should be seeking to understand Why God allows the world to be in the state it currently is in. But what are you doing? You are expending all your energy and fury in ranting and raving at God ( and His followers) because the world is they way it currently is. Now for one who believes in God can there be any profit in doing this? No it is an absolute waste of time because God must have a reason to allow the world to exist as it currently does.
Milkmoon:
I know it kills me. I know that if I were made God for a day, I would make the world a million times better. Or perhaps not make it at all. One of the reasons I started turning against religion was because of the intolerance of people of other religions and the treatment of non-believers, children, women, homosexuals, etc. I am not defending non-believers because I am one. It is simply one of the things that threw me off and made me truly question God's mercy and fairness.
I am not defending non-believers because I am one. :-5 Make up your mind do you believe in God or not? Because if you believe in God then by that definition you are religious.
As for intolerance: If one needs tolerance for others then by definition they disagree with the other persons state of being. Tolerance is not needed when one agrees that the other person's condition as being fine and good.
Society has been playing the game where word meanings have been shifted over the generations to a point where tolerance today means acceptance. No. Tolerance means having to tolerate (put up with) something that one is against.
Jesus has a lot of tolerance for sinners and is more tolerant than you are. He can forgive paedophiles as an example. I agree with Gods will to forgive repentant sinners. It is fairness to have mercy on the repentant. It is an act of love to forgive. And God is Just. No one who is not repentant is going to get away with their wrongdoings. It does not matter if they get away with it in this life or not.
Milkmoon:
3. I cannot think of a big mistake that I have committed, but I have seen so many people make big ones and feel deep remorse over them later. I was trying to see it from their perspective. I already discussed the world 'mistake' with you, but so that you don't go about pointing fingers at it again, those people who committed a fault (better?) but regretted or tried to make up for it later, maybe even years later, I see as good. Because they learnt from their previous faults.
a fault yep better.
What if the person committed the fault of child molestation and later felt deep remorse? Would you look upon them later and see them as good?
Milkmoon:
So, I was never talking about myself questioning the existence of God. I am quite sure that there is a higher power there that made everything the way it was. I was talking about those who do actually question his existence, and if they were actually allowed to think that way. Do not jump to conclusions, please.
There is nothing wrong with questioning God, But there is something wrong with accusing God.
A person who questions God out of a genuine desire to understand His will is doing the right thing and we are told in the bible to ask God for wisdom. But i know that a lot of people "question" God with an accusatory/ rebellious intent. They don't want to understand, they have already made up their own conclusions. All they are doing is ranting as God and they are no longer interested in any response God would provide them.
Yes, I do disagree with the will of God. What did God do before creating the world and everyone in it? If he was all that was there, what compelled him to create? Was he bored, lonely, depressed? All human emotions, but what else would make him create us, and the world in general? If he doesn't need or want anything or anyone, what made him make this mess to begin with? Besides, doesn't Matthew 7:18 say that "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit"? God is perfect, why did he make us so imperfect? If he knew we were going to destroy ourselves and destroy others, why did he make us? He knew this was going to happen, why did he do it? And again, you might bring up the argument on free will, but just the other day someone I knew who made a decision they thought would make them happy, found out that it made them unhappy. If people had no free will they would have no choice but to make the right decision which would have made them happy. And why is there right or wrong to choose from either way? Why did God give us free reins to choose evil? Knowing that many of us would? For what greater good?
You might say, as you have said before, that it's because he's working out his plan to restore the world to it's perfect state. If that's what he wants, why doesn't he just destroy us all now? What is he trying to prove?
So yes, I do disagree with his will.
I believe the Angels existed before the universe was created. In creating the universe I believe He is trying to prove something to the Angels. In an attempt to save them from the lake of fire. satan rebelled against God because He wanted to be looked upon as a god and that’s the exact thing he used to entice the first humans to obtain the knowledge of good and evil, He told them they would be gods.
He does not destroy us now because He is still in the process of saving people from the lake of fire.
God wants us to be our own selves not zombies. If we have no free will then we would not be us. Our free will makes us beings.
When God finished His creation he said it was good. And it was Good. It only became contaminated when humans took the knowledge of good and evil. But again we are only called upon to live one lifetime in this twisted world. A lifetime is nothing compared to eternity.
Adstar:
99.9% of discussions on God are about objections to the expressed will of God revealed in the Bible
Milkmoon:
And where do you get this statistic from? Or did you just make it up off the top of your head?
I can only go on my own personal experience. So i should have said : From my personal experience the overwhelming majority of discussions on God are about objections to the expressed will of God.
Milkmoon:
Look into the atheistic arguments more, as by your quote here, it seems like you haven't, I might be wrong, but that's certainly what it looks like.
From a quick Google, this is one of the things I came up with.
Psychologist and skeptic Susan Blackmore replies to what you were saying exactly:
“God is so nasty,” she says. “That doesn’t prove he doesn’t exist, of course. But the inconsistencies and incompatibilities in what people believe just strike me as bizarre. God is supposed to be wonderful, loving, and caring. And yet the book supposedly coming from him is full of kill the infidel and burn people in hell if they don’t do the right thing. People believe these nasty and incompatible things. Is that an argument against God? It certainly weakens the idea.” replies to what you were saying exactly:
“God is so nasty,” she says. “That doesn’t prove he doesn’t exist, of course. But the inconsistencies and incompatibilities in what people believe just strike me as bizarre. God is supposed to be wonderful, loving, and caring. And yet the book supposedly coming from him is full of kill the infidel and burn people in hell if they don’t do the right thing. People believe these nasty and incompatible things. Is that an argument against God? It certainly weakens the idea.”
Just because God brings forth punishment does not mean he is not also loving and forgiving. They are not incompatible. Human beings like your very own self are willing to kill a paedophile but you have also stated that you are willing to forgive someone if they are full of remorse and regret their wrong.
We read the bible in full and we can see that God is both a God of great wrath and even greater forgiveness, But He does not forgive one who is proud of their evil deed. Would You?
Milkmoon:
For people like me, we believe God does exist even though we admit this is unknowable, but we doubt the religious scriptures and doubt whether he actually cares about what goes down here or not. I believe we are called agnostics or deists. Deism became quite prominent in the 17th and 18th centuries during the Age of Enlightenment, when people accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason, but rejected belief in a supernatural deity that intervenes in the universe. I'm not sure whether that describes my viewpoint or not, but it comes the closest.
Why would God create something and not care for His creation. Being God would He not want everything He created to end up a success?
As for deism. If deism is as you say then take a look at the world and ask yourself "does the God of the Bible fit this picture i am seeing?" He does for me.
And if one believes that God does not and will not interviewee in the universe then one believes in a far more evil God then the one revealed in the bible. A Christian’s greatest hope is for the coming intervention of the Messiah Jesus in the world. We believe God will intervene and return this creation the "good" state it was in at the beginning.
Adstar:
Gods existence or otherwise has absolutely nothing to do with peoples agreement or disagreement with His will.
Milkmoon
Not true. People who do not believe in God might do so because they find it hard to believe that anyone loving or merciful would make such a twisted world where injustice is essential.
First of all God did create a good world. It became corrupted but was not like this at the start. Secondly The Bible reveals a God who has more facets then just love and mercy. As God He is also a God who shall not allow sin to exist in eternity with Him. He is an uncompromising God in His justice.
Milkmoon:
If we are to believe that this greater power exists that cares, we would need to find some proof for that. God is apparently just sitting back and watching these happen, which would be his 'will', and therefore people question his existence.
For me that proof comes from the bible. God in the form of Jesus came into this world and willingly suffered a terrible death to save us from judgement. If He did not care for us He would have never done this for us.
Milkmoon:
You know what? Let me give it to you in a nutshell:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
God is able and willing to end evil When the time is right, When he has fully demonstrated to all He is justified in being the one and only God of all existence and satan and his angels are wrong in their claim to godhood.
Milkmoon:
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
No He is Longsuffering. Putting up with evil untill evil plays it'self out.
Milkmoon:
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
He is both able and willing. When the time is right.
Milkmoon:
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
-- Epicurus
He is God because He is able and shall bring an end to evil once His truth becomes evident to all creation Angelic and Human.
Milkmoon:
This is the argument.
And the wisdom of YAVEH, the God revealed through the Bible is greater than the mere thoughts of men.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
Anger at theft, good. Anger at the thief not good.
Milkmoon:
But theft cannot exist without the thief. The thief can exist without the theft. Unless they're kleptomaniac and cannot control it, they made a choice in choosing to steal. I might be able to forgive a poor person for stealing food or a bit of money the need to survive, but how about the ultra-rich that steal from other people? The greedy, the swindlers? Do I not have a right to be angry at them?
Jesus calls upon me not to hate them. Especially if they repent of their scams and exploitations and express their sorrow for their wrong doings. I have been forgiven and it is upon me to forgive others. It is like a covenant between me and God. God agrees to forgive me a repentant sinner and i must agree to forgive others who are repentant. God agrees not to carry out judgement upon me and i agree not to carry out judgement upon other people.
Milkmoon:
It's like saying I should be angry at the gun, not the person holding it. A gun cannot fire a bullet by itself, it needs someone to pull the trigger. Why should I be angry at the gun? An inanimate object that could be used for self-defense? Why can't I be angry at the murderer? Likewise, why should I be angry at theft, which is nothing but a word, rather than the actual thief for choosing to define that word?
Because theft is what has caused the suffering, the loss, the injustice of having something taken from you that you have worked for.
Another point i want to make, no thief or rapist or murderer will be forgiven in eternity if they reject the atonement of the Messiah Jesus. If a person has done me wrong and is un-repentant i know that the Judgement of God upon that person is way more than a million times worse that anything i could ever do an act of revenge. So no unrepentant wrongdoer is going to get away with their sin. Because i know this it makes it easier to hand these situations over to God and no take revenge myself. The Bible says (and note carefully the bolded words)
Romans 12
19Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord. 20Therefore "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; If he is thirsty, give him a drink; For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head."
Milkmoon:
So since getting angry with someone labels you a murderer, and is something worth of the death penalty unless you believe in the right message (whichever the 'right' one is), does that mean that murderers would make it to heaven if they believe in God?
Believing in God? No, satan believes in God and he is predestined to be cast into the lake of fire. One must believe God plus be repentant of their sins. plus trust in the atonement of the Messiah Jesus. Then they shall have eternity with God. (I don't believe that will be in heaven but that’s another topic)
Yes a Murderer who came to believe these things and is repentant shall have eternity with God. There is only one unforgivable sin and murder is not it.
I don't know whether you'd follow my line of thinking or not, so let me explain. Anger at a person labels you a murderer. You are forgiven, if you believe. So let's say you are an actual murderer. You believe, are you forgiven? And as I asked above, where do you draw the line? Would a pedophile priest make it to heaven if they believe?
Simple answer Yes a former paedophile can be forgiven through the atonement of the Messiah Jesus. But sexual deviancy is also a sign that the person may well have been given over to a degenerate mind because of their rejection of the love of the truth. So i would have very little hope for a paedophile.
Romans 1
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;
Adstar:
So the Bible says that a debased mind is a sign that the person has rejected the Love of the truth of God.
Milkmoon
But you would also be facing judgement for your unlawful killing of him
My unlawful killing? It is not lawful to kill someone who robs young children of their innocence? How about if I did it to protect not only the child in question, but other children elsewhere who might be future victims?
I would agree with seeking to prevent further attacks on children, i would see to have the person arrested by the authorities. There is no need for me to kill the offender. I would also seek to get that child victim the best treatment to aleviate the trauma that had been caused by their violation.
Adstar:
He would be judged for his sin against the child. But you would also be facing judgement for your unlawful killing of him.
Milkmoon:
So he'd be going to hell for harming innocents, and I would be going to hell for attempting to protect my loved one and the loved ones of other people? How is that even remotely the same?
Wooo back, my quote above was in reply the scenario given originally by you. That was, you where going to kill the violator because of what they had done. Not what they where going to do. You have only just introduced that into the scenario in this post.
Again One can seek to prevent a paedophile violating others by seeking their arrest by the authorities.
Adstar:
As a Christian we are called to give over judgement to God.
Milkmoon:
If what I told you actually happened as opposed to nearly happening, I would not be able to hand my judgement over to God, knowing I could have stopped the man from continuing to damage the lives of young children and didn't, because I handed the matter over to a God who would most likely forgive him if he was a believer or became one. And God wouldn't have protected her or children like her, not in this world. How many countless children does this happen to anyway? And how many times does God intervene? Exactly, none.
You cannot say God has never prevented incidences of child molestation.
Milkmoon:
If God proved that he does care and actually intervened in our lives to destroy wicked people, as he did in the OT, or if he just least made the world a better place where this kind of thing wasn't even though of anyway, I would have faith.
So now you want God to bring forth His wrath upon people? But i many of your posts you have been posting OT verses showing incidences of Gods wrath and calling Him evil for bringing forth His wrath. You cannot have it both ways.
You know that when God ordered the Hebrews to bring His wrath upon the Canaanites one of the sins His wrath was being poured out for was child sacrifice. People in Canaan had been sacrificing their little ones to the pagan god moloch, They had a hollow statue of him made of bronze and under it they had a fire to make the statue glowing hot, they get placed a baby into the hands of the statue and it was burnt to death. The pagan priests would beat drums to drown out the sound of the little ones screams so that the parents of the baby would feel less distress.
If God where to bring His wrath to this world today to kill all the paedophiles he would also kill all the abortionists and everyone who agrees with abortion. Most peoples would face what the Canaanites faced from the Hebrews.
Adstar:
No your not supposed to love sin. Or love someone because of their sin
Milkmoon:
But didn't you say we are to love the sinner and hate the sin?
What i said above is not inconsistent. We are supposed to love other people because they are people like us and because they are loved by God. Not because of their sin or because they are a sinner.
Adstar:
But you should be prepared to forgive someone who repents for their evil doings. Yeah i know i such a case it would be incredibly difficult.
Milkmoon:
It would be more than incredibly difficult. I would never in a million years be able to forgive someone who did that, if they actually did do it. I don't see how anyone could.
Well i cannot say i am surprised, You have rejected the love of the truth and called it evil so i would not expect you to forgive. But as a Christian that is what i am called to do and what i the right thing to do.
Milkmoon:
If you have/had a daughter or sister, would you be prepared to forgive someone like that? How could anyone? It's unnatural.
Well having been in a very close relationships with more than one victim of such abuse (and worse) i can say i believe i would be willing to forgive the ones that abused them.
Milkmoon:
And besides, how could I be forgiving them if I am consoling myself by telling myself that God would carry out judgement on them and would be sending them to hell? That's not truly forgiveness, now is it?
That’s the difference between give an unrepentant offender over to the judgement of God and forgiving a repentant offender. As a Christian i am called not to take revenge upon the unrepentant offender and to forgive the repentant offender. Now i would be sure to talk to the offender who asked for forgiveness about their need to believe Jesus and obtain Gods forgiveness. I would even give warning to the unrepentant offender of Gods judgement to come. Wether or not an offender is forgiven by God, Christians are called upon to forgive when forgiveness is asked of them.
Milkmoon:
And there are some things that are unforgivable.
Well as i have already said. with God there is only one unforgivable sin.
1. I'm not a non-believer. I do believe in God. I think I mentioned this before. I just can't understand what kind of person it would take to make such as messed up world.
Wow... So if you believe in God then it should be clear to you that God made this world and this world is the way it currently is because God allows it to be. So then if you believe God exists then you should be seeking to understand Why God allows the world to be in the state it currently is in. But what are you doing? You are expending all your energy and fury in ranting and raving at God ( and His followers) because the world is they way it currently is. Now for one who believes in God can there be any profit in doing this? No it is an absolute waste of time because God must have a reason to allow the world to exist as it currently does.
Milkmoon:
I know it kills me. I know that if I were made God for a day, I would make the world a million times better. Or perhaps not make it at all. One of the reasons I started turning against religion was because of the intolerance of people of other religions and the treatment of non-believers, children, women, homosexuals, etc. I am not defending non-believers because I am one. It is simply one of the things that threw me off and made me truly question God's mercy and fairness.
I am not defending non-believers because I am one. :-5 Make up your mind do you believe in God or not? Because if you believe in God then by that definition you are religious.
As for intolerance: If one needs tolerance for others then by definition they disagree with the other persons state of being. Tolerance is not needed when one agrees that the other person's condition as being fine and good.
Society has been playing the game where word meanings have been shifted over the generations to a point where tolerance today means acceptance. No. Tolerance means having to tolerate (put up with) something that one is against.
Jesus has a lot of tolerance for sinners and is more tolerant than you are. He can forgive paedophiles as an example. I agree with Gods will to forgive repentant sinners. It is fairness to have mercy on the repentant. It is an act of love to forgive. And God is Just. No one who is not repentant is going to get away with their wrongdoings. It does not matter if they get away with it in this life or not.
Milkmoon:
3. I cannot think of a big mistake that I have committed, but I have seen so many people make big ones and feel deep remorse over them later. I was trying to see it from their perspective. I already discussed the world 'mistake' with you, but so that you don't go about pointing fingers at it again, those people who committed a fault (better?) but regretted or tried to make up for it later, maybe even years later, I see as good. Because they learnt from their previous faults.
a fault yep better.
What if the person committed the fault of child molestation and later felt deep remorse? Would you look upon them later and see them as good?
Milkmoon:
So, I was never talking about myself questioning the existence of God. I am quite sure that there is a higher power there that made everything the way it was. I was talking about those who do actually question his existence, and if they were actually allowed to think that way. Do not jump to conclusions, please.
There is nothing wrong with questioning God, But there is something wrong with accusing God.
A person who questions God out of a genuine desire to understand His will is doing the right thing and we are told in the bible to ask God for wisdom. But i know that a lot of people "question" God with an accusatory/ rebellious intent. They don't want to understand, they have already made up their own conclusions. All they are doing is ranting as God and they are no longer interested in any response God would provide them.
Yes, I do disagree with the will of God. What did God do before creating the world and everyone in it? If he was all that was there, what compelled him to create? Was he bored, lonely, depressed? All human emotions, but what else would make him create us, and the world in general? If he doesn't need or want anything or anyone, what made him make this mess to begin with? Besides, doesn't Matthew 7:18 say that "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit"? God is perfect, why did he make us so imperfect? If he knew we were going to destroy ourselves and destroy others, why did he make us? He knew this was going to happen, why did he do it? And again, you might bring up the argument on free will, but just the other day someone I knew who made a decision they thought would make them happy, found out that it made them unhappy. If people had no free will they would have no choice but to make the right decision which would have made them happy. And why is there right or wrong to choose from either way? Why did God give us free reins to choose evil? Knowing that many of us would? For what greater good?
You might say, as you have said before, that it's because he's working out his plan to restore the world to it's perfect state. If that's what he wants, why doesn't he just destroy us all now? What is he trying to prove?
So yes, I do disagree with his will.
I believe the Angels existed before the universe was created. In creating the universe I believe He is trying to prove something to the Angels. In an attempt to save them from the lake of fire. satan rebelled against God because He wanted to be looked upon as a god and that’s the exact thing he used to entice the first humans to obtain the knowledge of good and evil, He told them they would be gods.
He does not destroy us now because He is still in the process of saving people from the lake of fire.
God wants us to be our own selves not zombies. If we have no free will then we would not be us. Our free will makes us beings.
When God finished His creation he said it was good. And it was Good. It only became contaminated when humans took the knowledge of good and evil. But again we are only called upon to live one lifetime in this twisted world. A lifetime is nothing compared to eternity.
Adstar:
99.9% of discussions on God are about objections to the expressed will of God revealed in the Bible
Milkmoon:
And where do you get this statistic from? Or did you just make it up off the top of your head?
I can only go on my own personal experience. So i should have said : From my personal experience the overwhelming majority of discussions on God are about objections to the expressed will of God.
Milkmoon:
Look into the atheistic arguments more, as by your quote here, it seems like you haven't, I might be wrong, but that's certainly what it looks like.
From a quick Google, this is one of the things I came up with.
Psychologist and skeptic Susan Blackmore replies to what you were saying exactly:
“God is so nasty,” she says. “That doesn’t prove he doesn’t exist, of course. But the inconsistencies and incompatibilities in what people believe just strike me as bizarre. God is supposed to be wonderful, loving, and caring. And yet the book supposedly coming from him is full of kill the infidel and burn people in hell if they don’t do the right thing. People believe these nasty and incompatible things. Is that an argument against God? It certainly weakens the idea.” replies to what you were saying exactly:
“God is so nasty,” she says. “That doesn’t prove he doesn’t exist, of course. But the inconsistencies and incompatibilities in what people believe just strike me as bizarre. God is supposed to be wonderful, loving, and caring. And yet the book supposedly coming from him is full of kill the infidel and burn people in hell if they don’t do the right thing. People believe these nasty and incompatible things. Is that an argument against God? It certainly weakens the idea.”
Just because God brings forth punishment does not mean he is not also loving and forgiving. They are not incompatible. Human beings like your very own self are willing to kill a paedophile but you have also stated that you are willing to forgive someone if they are full of remorse and regret their wrong.
We read the bible in full and we can see that God is both a God of great wrath and even greater forgiveness, But He does not forgive one who is proud of their evil deed. Would You?
Milkmoon:
For people like me, we believe God does exist even though we admit this is unknowable, but we doubt the religious scriptures and doubt whether he actually cares about what goes down here or not. I believe we are called agnostics or deists. Deism became quite prominent in the 17th and 18th centuries during the Age of Enlightenment, when people accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason, but rejected belief in a supernatural deity that intervenes in the universe. I'm not sure whether that describes my viewpoint or not, but it comes the closest.
Why would God create something and not care for His creation. Being God would He not want everything He created to end up a success?
As for deism. If deism is as you say then take a look at the world and ask yourself "does the God of the Bible fit this picture i am seeing?" He does for me.
And if one believes that God does not and will not interviewee in the universe then one believes in a far more evil God then the one revealed in the bible. A Christian’s greatest hope is for the coming intervention of the Messiah Jesus in the world. We believe God will intervene and return this creation the "good" state it was in at the beginning.
Adstar:
Gods existence or otherwise has absolutely nothing to do with peoples agreement or disagreement with His will.
Milkmoon
Not true. People who do not believe in God might do so because they find it hard to believe that anyone loving or merciful would make such a twisted world where injustice is essential.
First of all God did create a good world. It became corrupted but was not like this at the start. Secondly The Bible reveals a God who has more facets then just love and mercy. As God He is also a God who shall not allow sin to exist in eternity with Him. He is an uncompromising God in His justice.
Milkmoon:
If we are to believe that this greater power exists that cares, we would need to find some proof for that. God is apparently just sitting back and watching these happen, which would be his 'will', and therefore people question his existence.
For me that proof comes from the bible. God in the form of Jesus came into this world and willingly suffered a terrible death to save us from judgement. If He did not care for us He would have never done this for us.
Milkmoon:
You know what? Let me give it to you in a nutshell:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
God is able and willing to end evil When the time is right, When he has fully demonstrated to all He is justified in being the one and only God of all existence and satan and his angels are wrong in their claim to godhood.
Milkmoon:
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
No He is Longsuffering. Putting up with evil untill evil plays it'self out.
Milkmoon:
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
He is both able and willing. When the time is right.
Milkmoon:
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
-- Epicurus
He is God because He is able and shall bring an end to evil once His truth becomes evident to all creation Angelic and Human.
Milkmoon:
This is the argument.
And the wisdom of YAVEH, the God revealed through the Bible is greater than the mere thoughts of men.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
My Theory On God: Narcissism (And Why Evil Exists)
When ever I quote scripture I give the book and verse number
Didn't the post I gave give the book and verse number? Not sure why you are putting so much importance on this.
Is it because you actually believe you have done no wrong
Well, yes. Why would I have done wrong? I did not take anyone's opinion, I simply used a source that listed relevant scripture.
or is it simply the fact that you’re in a discussion with a Christian and you must never be seen to be corrected by a Theist?
Typical. Are you deliberately ignoring all the times I made an error and admitted to it? You seem to always want to turn this into a believer vs non-believer thing, even when this is not the case.
We are in a discussion, You and Me. Not you Me and the opinion of the author of that web site you quoted.
This is not about you and me. This is about religion and God. Surely it's not wrong of me to bring in a third opinion that clarifies my main issue?
God was talking about the tribe of Judah descendants of Israel people born into Torah Judaism. His chosen people.
Why did choose the people of Judah then, knowing that they would be evil and would follow the dictates of their hearts and walk after other Gods? God is supposedly omniscient, and he must have foreseen the sinning and disobedience of the Israelites, and yet he chose them expecting them to devout people in the mold of Abraham? ("You will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites." - Exodus 19:6)
Once we are given the Message of Jesus then we are responsible for our own response to His revelation.
And those who were not given the Message of Jesus?
God’s will defines what is good and what is evil
Basically, those who are good are the ones who believe. Those who are evil are the ones who don't. It doesn't really matter what they did or what they were like as individuals. If you can't see the problem with that, then we might as well just agree to disagree.
His justice cannot allow an unforgiven one to exist in eternity with Him.
Alright then, but why send them to hell? Wouldn't it have been more merciful to send the believers to heaven, as a reward for them, and leave the non-believing down on Earth, until they repent? And why does any of this matter to God?
Therefore you have personally rejected the love of the truth.
And what ever you agree with you find true and good
You and I have different definitions of truth. And you seem to believe that agreeing with something always means it is true and good. True, yes. Good, not necessarily. So again, we agree to disagree.
A loving teacher would give them all accurate marks to let them know if they needed to improve or not.
Likewise, when we meet people we must try and see the good in them (even though it can be very hard at times), but we cannot give them all good marks. You simply cannot love everyone, it is impossible to force yourself to love someone you find despicable.
Christians often love others by using the word of God to convict them of sin. So love can often be seen as hard love. Often it is seen as hate.
What kind of love can be seen as hate? The two are completely opposite emotions. The 'hard love' you are talking about sounds more like thinly disguised hatred.
But if they did “cuddle” the nazis maybe some of the nazis would have become confused
...what do you know about Nazis?
In the Stockholm syndrome one both loves the person and their sins. Christians love the sinner but do not love their sins.
How is this possible? Stockholm Syndrome might be, as you said, "when hostages or victims express empathy and have positive feelings towards their captors, sometimes to the point of defending them." (Wikipedia), but it might also be when people inexplicably 'love' their abusers. You can try to love the sinner but hate the sin, but I guarantee you will feel a degree of negative emotion towards the sinner for committing these sins, especially if it's against you and your loved ones, whether you admit it to yourself or not. Love is a positive emotion, so if you 'love' your abusers, it means you hold positive feelings towards them, while is one of the features of Stockholm Syndrome. You were talking about love, and not forgiveness, so yes, if you love your torturer, this would be Stockholm Syndrome.
Now, just to clarify, forgiving I can understand. I do think that some things are unforgivable, and that the person affected should not feel compelled to forgive when they have every right to their anger. What I find absurd is how you're expected to go so far as to 'love your enemies'.
God wants sinners to be saved. We want all people who are rejectors of the Love of the truth to have as long a life as possible, because as long as these people have life we can have hope for them. (even if it is near no hope it is not Zero hope) Once you kill a rejector of the truth they are doomed. A Christian who kills a rejector of the atonement of the Messiah Jesus has just gone 100% against the will of God.
I think you misunderstood. I said "So wouldn't a believer killing someone who is rejecting the message of god be more justified than when God kills those who never heard the word of God?". When someone rejects the will of God, they had already heard it, and made a choice to reject it. When someone who never even heard the message of God is killed by God himself, they were not even given a chance to accept it or reject it.
Yes He put them into hell because He could not compromise His absolute justice.
I draw a line at the word 'justice'. I have tried to explain why I see the fact that God throws the ignorant, and therefore innocent, into hell without them having committed a wrong as something unjust, but again, I guess we just have to agree to disagree.
God is not willing that anyone should perish in hell but that all should come to repentance and be saved. Even the worst of sinners.
If God does not want anyone to perish in hell, why did he make it? It sounds like humans are making God do something he doesn't want to do. Besides, if God willingly created us, then he pretty much willingly sentenced us to hell, because he would have known that's where most of the human race is going.
If I where in their position I would rather die and be with God then to live a life like that.
I agree with you. I would wish for death too. I am responding to your quote. In the first few posts you said it was against the will of God to murder innocents, and that a person who follows such a religion could not possibly be following the right one. Well in these cases, it is the will of God to murder innocents. What is the point of having a rule if exceptions are going to keep being made?
Because when God orders it, it is not an injustice. God has total situational awareness. We do not. We do well if we follow His guidance. Because His guidance is correct.
I see. God is allowed to be as unjust as wants, because he's God. It's the basic rule about how people in power have free reins to do whatever they want, and not have any of their actions labeled as wrong. It's simply an issue of double standards, and calling something a different name even though it is deserving of another.
I believe Moses made a call at that moment to keep the girls alive because once they died out the Midianites would then be destroyed. So it turned into a delayed destruction, but still destruction.
That doesn't make sense. Why not kill them all in one go, if the goal was to destroy them?
(Also to be continued)
Didn't the post I gave give the book and verse number? Not sure why you are putting so much importance on this.
Is it because you actually believe you have done no wrong
Well, yes. Why would I have done wrong? I did not take anyone's opinion, I simply used a source that listed relevant scripture.
or is it simply the fact that you’re in a discussion with a Christian and you must never be seen to be corrected by a Theist?
Typical. Are you deliberately ignoring all the times I made an error and admitted to it? You seem to always want to turn this into a believer vs non-believer thing, even when this is not the case.
We are in a discussion, You and Me. Not you Me and the opinion of the author of that web site you quoted.
This is not about you and me. This is about religion and God. Surely it's not wrong of me to bring in a third opinion that clarifies my main issue?
God was talking about the tribe of Judah descendants of Israel people born into Torah Judaism. His chosen people.
Why did choose the people of Judah then, knowing that they would be evil and would follow the dictates of their hearts and walk after other Gods? God is supposedly omniscient, and he must have foreseen the sinning and disobedience of the Israelites, and yet he chose them expecting them to devout people in the mold of Abraham? ("You will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites." - Exodus 19:6)
Once we are given the Message of Jesus then we are responsible for our own response to His revelation.
And those who were not given the Message of Jesus?
God’s will defines what is good and what is evil
Basically, those who are good are the ones who believe. Those who are evil are the ones who don't. It doesn't really matter what they did or what they were like as individuals. If you can't see the problem with that, then we might as well just agree to disagree.
His justice cannot allow an unforgiven one to exist in eternity with Him.
Alright then, but why send them to hell? Wouldn't it have been more merciful to send the believers to heaven, as a reward for them, and leave the non-believing down on Earth, until they repent? And why does any of this matter to God?
Therefore you have personally rejected the love of the truth.
And what ever you agree with you find true and good
You and I have different definitions of truth. And you seem to believe that agreeing with something always means it is true and good. True, yes. Good, not necessarily. So again, we agree to disagree.
A loving teacher would give them all accurate marks to let them know if they needed to improve or not.
Likewise, when we meet people we must try and see the good in them (even though it can be very hard at times), but we cannot give them all good marks. You simply cannot love everyone, it is impossible to force yourself to love someone you find despicable.
Christians often love others by using the word of God to convict them of sin. So love can often be seen as hard love. Often it is seen as hate.
What kind of love can be seen as hate? The two are completely opposite emotions. The 'hard love' you are talking about sounds more like thinly disguised hatred.
But if they did “cuddle” the nazis maybe some of the nazis would have become confused
...what do you know about Nazis?
In the Stockholm syndrome one both loves the person and their sins. Christians love the sinner but do not love their sins.
How is this possible? Stockholm Syndrome might be, as you said, "when hostages or victims express empathy and have positive feelings towards their captors, sometimes to the point of defending them." (Wikipedia), but it might also be when people inexplicably 'love' their abusers. You can try to love the sinner but hate the sin, but I guarantee you will feel a degree of negative emotion towards the sinner for committing these sins, especially if it's against you and your loved ones, whether you admit it to yourself or not. Love is a positive emotion, so if you 'love' your abusers, it means you hold positive feelings towards them, while is one of the features of Stockholm Syndrome. You were talking about love, and not forgiveness, so yes, if you love your torturer, this would be Stockholm Syndrome.
Now, just to clarify, forgiving I can understand. I do think that some things are unforgivable, and that the person affected should not feel compelled to forgive when they have every right to their anger. What I find absurd is how you're expected to go so far as to 'love your enemies'.
God wants sinners to be saved. We want all people who are rejectors of the Love of the truth to have as long a life as possible, because as long as these people have life we can have hope for them. (even if it is near no hope it is not Zero hope) Once you kill a rejector of the truth they are doomed. A Christian who kills a rejector of the atonement of the Messiah Jesus has just gone 100% against the will of God.
I think you misunderstood. I said "So wouldn't a believer killing someone who is rejecting the message of god be more justified than when God kills those who never heard the word of God?". When someone rejects the will of God, they had already heard it, and made a choice to reject it. When someone who never even heard the message of God is killed by God himself, they were not even given a chance to accept it or reject it.
Yes He put them into hell because He could not compromise His absolute justice.
I draw a line at the word 'justice'. I have tried to explain why I see the fact that God throws the ignorant, and therefore innocent, into hell without them having committed a wrong as something unjust, but again, I guess we just have to agree to disagree.
God is not willing that anyone should perish in hell but that all should come to repentance and be saved. Even the worst of sinners.
If God does not want anyone to perish in hell, why did he make it? It sounds like humans are making God do something he doesn't want to do. Besides, if God willingly created us, then he pretty much willingly sentenced us to hell, because he would have known that's where most of the human race is going.
If I where in their position I would rather die and be with God then to live a life like that.
I agree with you. I would wish for death too. I am responding to your quote. In the first few posts you said it was against the will of God to murder innocents, and that a person who follows such a religion could not possibly be following the right one. Well in these cases, it is the will of God to murder innocents. What is the point of having a rule if exceptions are going to keep being made?
Because when God orders it, it is not an injustice. God has total situational awareness. We do not. We do well if we follow His guidance. Because His guidance is correct.
I see. God is allowed to be as unjust as wants, because he's God. It's the basic rule about how people in power have free reins to do whatever they want, and not have any of their actions labeled as wrong. It's simply an issue of double standards, and calling something a different name even though it is deserving of another.
I believe Moses made a call at that moment to keep the girls alive because once they died out the Midianites would then be destroyed. So it turned into a delayed destruction, but still destruction.
That doesn't make sense. Why not kill them all in one go, if the goal was to destroy them?
(Also to be continued)
I do not want people to be agreeable, as it saves me the trouble of liking them - Austen
My Theory On God: Narcissism (And Why Evil Exists)
Christians are not called to put people to death. Don’t get Christianity and islam mixed up.
Have you forgotten what you said? "just like atheists mock and denigrate Christians who are giving a serious message of God are worthy of being put to death." I did not say Christians were actually being called to put people to death. You said that some were worthy of being put to death, so that was what I was discussing. The worthiness of being put to death, not the actual command.
if a Christian does spit on and denigrate someone they are giving a message of God to then yes they are worthy of death.
Very well then, at least it goes both ways. However, I still think that whichever side initiated it, the death penalty is a bit too violent and severe a punishment for a harsh word. And besides, back to a previous point, why would you say something like that to start with? I thought you were supposed to love your enemies? How can you want someone you 'love' to be put to death, or think they are worthy of it? Can you understand why I think that 'love your enemies' is illogical? I'm not saying you have to agree with it, but can you see what I meant now?
I am a Christian. I do not deny homosexuals rights. I do not attempt to outlaw abortion. I do not attempt to deny woman their rights. I do not try to impose my beliefs on other people.
Remember we are discussing things between you and me. Not between you and me and everyone who calls themselves a Christian.
Why are you narrowing this down to you and me again? Look at the title. It's about God, and therefore also about religion in general. It's not 'Adstar vs. MilkMoon'. You cannot come to a conclusion based on yourself, as that would give you a broad generalization that would not necessarily be true. Just because you are not like that, that doesn't mean that others aren't either.
I am not a part of that power structure.
I did not say you were. However, they are quite a few Christians protesting and fighting to change the will of the authorities.
I give a message let each person decide how they react to it.
That is reasonable, I didn't say it wasn't.
If God had no morality then He would not bother giving moral guidance. Clearly ending a life lawfully is Not Immoral.
Double standards, yet again.
In doing this they cease to be believers of Jesus and therefore have no atonement for their sins.
They have no atonement for their sins though they accepted the message of Jesus? Even if they didn't necessarily take part in a justifiable war?
He knows if parents have abused their children by anger motivated violent beating or in cutting words that do leave life long scars
Alright, then. That makes sense.
I think you have totally misunderstood what the passage is saying
I see. My mistake.
Why because we seem to have different interpretations of what the word means.
Same thing then, but different names. It's funny how a different word can cause such a commotion, isn't it?
Responsibility is taken when one feels repentant for their sins. Even though we are faulty and therefore are hopelessly destined to sin we can still agree with God that sin is bad and regret it.
Very well, I can understand that. I thought that you were using the faulty human state as an excuse for believers continuing to sin. I had heard a lot of people saying that.
Poor choice of example. You are getting Christianity mixed up with islam again.
I was speaking of hypocrisy in general, I didn't specify Christianity or Islam. Perhaps a better choice of example would have been a person who watches pornography.
They would still be forgiven because it was the desire of their flesh that was driving them to sin not the will of their conscience to God.
But don't humans have free will? We are not 'zombies', as you said previously. Our bodies don't control us, we have a choice to make. Unless someone has a disorder that comes with substance abuse, then certainly, it is only fair to forgive.
Now the parents represent God and the little Girls represent true Christians.
Yes, I understand. That was a pretty good analogy.
There is nothing natural about homosexuality it runs against Gods law and it even runs against the Darwinian imperative for humans to successfully reproduce and carry on their genes. So on both counts it is an abomination.
Ah, but with animals for example, homosexual behaviour does, to an extent, increase chances of survival and the passing on of genes. Though it is obviously not used for reproduction, it is used for strengthening social bonding, resolving conflicts, or expressing domination. Homosexuality is found amongst almost all animal species. Bonobos, who have over 98% of genetic material in common with human beings, are the perfect example of this. The strengthening of social groups ties in with Darwin's theory of carrying on genes, because if social groups of monkeys, for example, were always in conflict, most of them would die out. And as for God's law, didn't God create the animals, and set laws for their survival and behaviour, etc? If he was so opposed to the idea of homosexuality, why is it something that is so frequently found in nature and almost necessary among certain groups of animals?
So it is Not saying that people who commit adultery or homosexual sin shall not enter the kingdom of heaven. It is saying that those who commit these sins with wicked wilful intent shall not enter the kingdom of Heaven
Aha, but this way, you are making it sound like your definition of 'mistake'. You say that people who commit adultery are not necessarily barred from entering the kingdom of heaven. To quote you "i don't know how but we seemed to
fall down together and what do you know we ended all
naked and having sex. I got no idea how that happened
and then i just kind of had her hubby mistakenly killed"
But it was all just a mistake really." When someone commits adultery, this was with willful intent. It's not 'oh we fell down together and ended up all naked' or 'we were stumbling around during the netball game because we were uncoordinated'. Can someone commit adultery with pure intent? Maybe they are having sex with someone is not their spouse for charity purposes, perhaps?
But if a Christian gets a divorce for some other reason they are not justified in getting remarried. So I do not agree with any remarriage after an unlawful divorce.
But the churches have no problem remarrying these people even after an unlawful divorce, as long as it's between a man and a woman, not a man and a man or a woman and a woman, even though technically both will be barred from the kingdom of heaven.
And why the restrictions on divorce anyway?
Matthew 5:27 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
The person did not actually commit adultery, but since they looked at someone to lust for them, they have. So they are guilty of a crime they didn't commit, even if the 'bashed the thought', but the Bible was referring to the unrepentant adulterers when it was talking of adulterers being barred from the kingdom of heaven?
So if one hates a sinner and are not prepared to forgive them their sin. On the day of Judgement God will likewise use the same judgement upon that person. He will say you have sinned, I do not forgive you.
They will use the same judgement among the person who is not responsible for committing a crime? If one hates a sadistic serial killer, they are given the same punishment as the serial killer? Where is the justice in that?
(There is one final post left to respond to before the continuation is complete. For the sake of avoiding confusion, please do not post a reply until I complete mine.)
Have you forgotten what you said? "just like atheists mock and denigrate Christians who are giving a serious message of God are worthy of being put to death." I did not say Christians were actually being called to put people to death. You said that some were worthy of being put to death, so that was what I was discussing. The worthiness of being put to death, not the actual command.
if a Christian does spit on and denigrate someone they are giving a message of God to then yes they are worthy of death.
Very well then, at least it goes both ways. However, I still think that whichever side initiated it, the death penalty is a bit too violent and severe a punishment for a harsh word. And besides, back to a previous point, why would you say something like that to start with? I thought you were supposed to love your enemies? How can you want someone you 'love' to be put to death, or think they are worthy of it? Can you understand why I think that 'love your enemies' is illogical? I'm not saying you have to agree with it, but can you see what I meant now?
I am a Christian. I do not deny homosexuals rights. I do not attempt to outlaw abortion. I do not attempt to deny woman their rights. I do not try to impose my beliefs on other people.
Remember we are discussing things between you and me. Not between you and me and everyone who calls themselves a Christian.
Why are you narrowing this down to you and me again? Look at the title. It's about God, and therefore also about religion in general. It's not 'Adstar vs. MilkMoon'. You cannot come to a conclusion based on yourself, as that would give you a broad generalization that would not necessarily be true. Just because you are not like that, that doesn't mean that others aren't either.
I am not a part of that power structure.
I did not say you were. However, they are quite a few Christians protesting and fighting to change the will of the authorities.
I give a message let each person decide how they react to it.
That is reasonable, I didn't say it wasn't.
If God had no morality then He would not bother giving moral guidance. Clearly ending a life lawfully is Not Immoral.
Double standards, yet again.
In doing this they cease to be believers of Jesus and therefore have no atonement for their sins.
They have no atonement for their sins though they accepted the message of Jesus? Even if they didn't necessarily take part in a justifiable war?
He knows if parents have abused their children by anger motivated violent beating or in cutting words that do leave life long scars
Alright, then. That makes sense.
I think you have totally misunderstood what the passage is saying
I see. My mistake.
Why because we seem to have different interpretations of what the word means.
Same thing then, but different names. It's funny how a different word can cause such a commotion, isn't it?
Responsibility is taken when one feels repentant for their sins. Even though we are faulty and therefore are hopelessly destined to sin we can still agree with God that sin is bad and regret it.
Very well, I can understand that. I thought that you were using the faulty human state as an excuse for believers continuing to sin. I had heard a lot of people saying that.
Poor choice of example. You are getting Christianity mixed up with islam again.
I was speaking of hypocrisy in general, I didn't specify Christianity or Islam. Perhaps a better choice of example would have been a person who watches pornography.
They would still be forgiven because it was the desire of their flesh that was driving them to sin not the will of their conscience to God.
But don't humans have free will? We are not 'zombies', as you said previously. Our bodies don't control us, we have a choice to make. Unless someone has a disorder that comes with substance abuse, then certainly, it is only fair to forgive.
Now the parents represent God and the little Girls represent true Christians.
Yes, I understand. That was a pretty good analogy.
There is nothing natural about homosexuality it runs against Gods law and it even runs against the Darwinian imperative for humans to successfully reproduce and carry on their genes. So on both counts it is an abomination.
Ah, but with animals for example, homosexual behaviour does, to an extent, increase chances of survival and the passing on of genes. Though it is obviously not used for reproduction, it is used for strengthening social bonding, resolving conflicts, or expressing domination. Homosexuality is found amongst almost all animal species. Bonobos, who have over 98% of genetic material in common with human beings, are the perfect example of this. The strengthening of social groups ties in with Darwin's theory of carrying on genes, because if social groups of monkeys, for example, were always in conflict, most of them would die out. And as for God's law, didn't God create the animals, and set laws for their survival and behaviour, etc? If he was so opposed to the idea of homosexuality, why is it something that is so frequently found in nature and almost necessary among certain groups of animals?
So it is Not saying that people who commit adultery or homosexual sin shall not enter the kingdom of heaven. It is saying that those who commit these sins with wicked wilful intent shall not enter the kingdom of Heaven
Aha, but this way, you are making it sound like your definition of 'mistake'. You say that people who commit adultery are not necessarily barred from entering the kingdom of heaven. To quote you "i don't know how but we seemed to
fall down together and what do you know we ended all
naked and having sex. I got no idea how that happened
and then i just kind of had her hubby mistakenly killed"
But it was all just a mistake really." When someone commits adultery, this was with willful intent. It's not 'oh we fell down together and ended up all naked' or 'we were stumbling around during the netball game because we were uncoordinated'. Can someone commit adultery with pure intent? Maybe they are having sex with someone is not their spouse for charity purposes, perhaps?
But if a Christian gets a divorce for some other reason they are not justified in getting remarried. So I do not agree with any remarriage after an unlawful divorce.
But the churches have no problem remarrying these people even after an unlawful divorce, as long as it's between a man and a woman, not a man and a man or a woman and a woman, even though technically both will be barred from the kingdom of heaven.
And why the restrictions on divorce anyway?
Matthew 5:27 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
The person did not actually commit adultery, but since they looked at someone to lust for them, they have. So they are guilty of a crime they didn't commit, even if the 'bashed the thought', but the Bible was referring to the unrepentant adulterers when it was talking of adulterers being barred from the kingdom of heaven?
So if one hates a sinner and are not prepared to forgive them their sin. On the day of Judgement God will likewise use the same judgement upon that person. He will say you have sinned, I do not forgive you.
They will use the same judgement among the person who is not responsible for committing a crime? If one hates a sadistic serial killer, they are given the same punishment as the serial killer? Where is the justice in that?
(There is one final post left to respond to before the continuation is complete. For the sake of avoiding confusion, please do not post a reply until I complete mine.)
I do not want people to be agreeable, as it saves me the trouble of liking them - Austen
My Theory On God: Narcissism (And Why Evil Exists)
God agrees not to carry out judgement upon me and i agree not to carry out judgement upon other people.
So what of a judge carrying out judgement in court? Will God pass on the same judgement/punishment onto the judge for judging others, even though it was justified and was done for the protection of society and the people in it?
Because theft is what has caused the suffering, the loss, the injustice of having something taken from you that you have worked for.
I disagree. The thief is what caused the suffering, the loss, and the injustice of having something taken from you that you have worked for. Theft is a word, a thief is a person who made the decision to make that word an action.
Another point i want to make, no thief or rapist or murderer will be forgiven in eternity if they reject the atonement of the Messiah Jesus
But I thought a theif, rapist, or murderer would not be forgiven in eternity even if they accept the atonement of the Messiah Jesus? Theft, rape, and murder are very often willful sins, which from what I understand from your previous explanations, are unforgivable in the eyes of God. But I guess they repented, and murder and rape are not unforgivable, are they? Blasphemy is. For me, this says a lot.
"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for a reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed" - Albert Einstein
Yes a Murderer who came to believe these things and is repentant shall have eternity with God. There is only one unforgivable sin and murder is not it.
A murderer/pedophile who accepts the atonement of the Messiah Jesus is forgiven. In itself, there is no problem with that, as it could very well show true remorse and repentance. But this brings my thoughts back to the original issue, which is that if a person accepts the message of Jesus out of fear for the afterlife is forgiven, whereas a murderer/pedophile who shows remorse and repentance with no hope of gaining anything (heaven and the like) is not. Although I do understand your side of the argument, and as we already agreed on the issue of willful sin vs true repentance, I have come to somewhat better terms with this.
the person may well have been given over to a degenerate mind because of their rejection of the love of the truth
So what is the rule for people with emotional/personality/mental disorders? Just out of curiosity. Are they given the same judgement?
i would see to have the person arrested by the authorities. There is no need for me to kill the offender.
Yet there are many, many cases of offenders going to jail for committing these sort of crimes then being released a few years later only to do the same thing over again, and maybe even worse.
You cannot say God has never prevented incidences of child molestation.
I doubt it was God that prevented these incidents from happening when they were. It could very well be coincidence. How many innocent (and for the sake of argument) Christian children have had horrors done to them, no matter how pious they or their parents were? And let's say that the times where these incidents were prevented were not coincidence, but were actually God intervening. Why does he help some and not others? They are children, they should all be deserving of protection.
So now you want God to bring forth His wrath upon people? But i many of your posts you have been posting OT verses showing incidences of Gods wrath and calling Him evil for bringing forth His wrath. You cannot have it both ways.
I called God evil for bringing forth his wrath because, as I have said more than once, it was his reasons I did not agree with. Mass-murder is not the same as sentencing the truly guilty to death. Giving the death penalty to a serial killer like Ted Bundy is not the same as killing a whole group of people (children included) for the wrongs of a few. Or having youth mauled (possibly even murdered) for calling someone 'baldhead'.
Example from a website called 'skepticsannotatedbible.com':
Deuteronomy 3:12-17 "If thou shalt hear ... men ... saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known ... Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword."
Martin Luther used these verses to justify burning the synagogues and homes of the Jews.
Believing in another God is enough to have someone put to death. That is why I call God's wrath 'evil'. His definition (and possibly yours) is different than mine, and other people's.
he would also kill all the abortionists and everyone who agrees with abortion.
Aha, abortion. I figured it was inevitable, with all the wide range of topics we've been covering. I have a lot to say about that, so I will start from the beginning.
I believe in abortion. I believe in choice. You don't believe in abortion, but you believe that killing live children is more merciful than keeping them alive as slaves. So why would abortion be any different? In this case, abortion would be the better option, as you are not sentencing the child to a life of misery, due to being born to:
a) A family that can't afford to support it (maybe even buy it food)
b) Family that doesn't want it, and therefore does not want it
c) A life in an orphanage (which is very bad for a lot of children, especially in third-world countries)
d) A life on the street
e) Suffering because their parents neglected to use birth control or because -
f) They are the products of rape (and how could a decent person force a woman to birth a child she was also forced to conceive? It is her body, it is her right. She couldn't decide what went in, it only seems fair to let her decide what goes out. Rape victims in Congo, for example, not only find it very hard to love the children born of their attackers, but also have the added responsibility of trying to look after the child when there is no food, home, medical care, or the like)
These are the worst-case scenario possibilities. Obviously not all aborted children would be given this kind of lifestyle, some might have been born into perfectly normal families. But unwanted children are at a higher risk of abuse and neglect, and as you agreed on the mercy killing part before, I can't see why you oppose it now.
And besides, God has previously condoned the killing of children still in the womb. I will not ask for an interpretation of Hosea 9, as I can predict you will say this is simply God punishing Israel, and him saying "Even if they bear children, I will slay their cherished offspring" is a justified punishment. I will hover, mention Hosea 13. Although I did read this in context (Hosea 13 NIV) and though I do know this is also on God's anger against Israel, to me this: "They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open" is not only the murder of children in the womb, but also unspeakable cruelty inflicted upon the mothers. "Ripped open"?
You have rejected the love of the truth and called it evil so i would not expect you to forgive. But as a Christian that is what i am called to do and what i the right thing to do.
I do forgive, but pedophilia and rape are in my eyes, unforgivable. But I would forgive someone for calling me names, which is something God won't or can't seem to do, though.
i can say i believe i would be willing to forgive the ones that abused them.
Perhaps you would be willing to, but would you actually forgive them? And most importantly, would the victims of such abuse be willing or even able to forgive them for destroying their lives?
God made this world and this world is the way it currently is because God allows it to be. So then if you believe God exists then you should be seeking to understand Why God allows the world to be in the state it currently is in.
I already have a theory why. Didn't you read the title of this post?
You are expending all your energy and fury in ranting and raving at God ( and His followers) because the world is they way it currently is.
Am I ranting and raving? I was relatively calm when writing all of this. What gives you the impression that I was 'expending fury'?
at God ( and His followers)
His followers? Please quote whenever I ranted and raved at the followers specifically. I am not expanding energy by discussing this topic, although as I said in a previous post (not to you, though) the anger at the injustice has pretty much been there since I was a child. I didn't take kindly to hearing that some of the people I loved most were going to hell.
Now for one who believes in God can there be any profit in doing this?
Just because I believe in a greater power, a deeper meaning, doesn't mean I don't feel the need to question.
No it is an absolute waste of time because God must have a reason to allow the world to exist as it currently does.
Discussing religion is a waste of time if one does not believe in it? That makes sense :rolleyes:
If you believe that, then it would seem you are wasting your time as well, responding to me. I have accepted a couple things you have said, and understood them clearly, but I remain immovable on a few of these points.
I am not defending non-believers because I am one. Make up your mind do you believe in God or not?
I wasn't talking about non-belief in God. *sighs* According to you, I am a non-believer, because I have seemingly rejected the love of the truth and the atonement of the Messiah Jesus. When the Bible or religion speaks of non-believers, I am counted as one of them, as I follow no doctrine. There, you see?
Because if you believe in God then by that definition you are religious.
Wrong. You are getting confused. One can believe in God without being religious.
From the Wikipedia article on Spirituality:
Religion implies a particular faith tradition that includes acceptance of a metaphysical or supernatural reality;[8]:22, whereas spirituality is not necessarily bound to any particular religious tradition...
From beliefnet.com:
The confusion stems from the fact that the words "spiritual" and "religious" are really synonyms. Both connote belief in a Higher Power of some kind. Both also imply a desire to connect, or enter into a more intense relationship, with this Higher Power.
Before the 20th century the terms religious and spiritual were used more or less interchangeably. But a number of modern intellectual and cultural forces have accentuated differences between the "private" and "public" spheres of life. The increasing prestige of the sciences, the insights of modern biblical scholarship, and greater awareness of cultural relativism all made it more difficult for educated American to sustain unqualified loyalty to religious institutions. Many began to associate genuine faith with the "private" realm of personal experience rather than with the "public" realm of institutions, creeds, and rituals. The word 'spiritual'
gradually came to be associated with a private realm of thought and experience, while the word 'religious' came to be connected with the public realm of membership in religious institutions, participation in formal rituals, and adherence to official denominational doctrines.
There is a difference between being a believer in souls or in a higher power, and actually following and adhering to the rules and moral standards of organized religion. I simply do not believe in organized religion. Is that so hard to understand?
Jesus has a lot of tolerance for sinners and is more tolerant than you are. He can forgive paedophiles as an example.
You know, for the record, just because I can't forgive pedophiles doesn't mean I want them to go to hell. There is a lot of evidence that it is a mental illness and that most of these abusers were abused as children themselves. I had mentioned previously that I thought the idea of an eternal torment in hell was too harsh for anyone, especially since people are born with certain natures and are raised in certain environments that bring out the good or the bad. I advocate the death pentalty for these people simply to protect the well-being of other people who could very well fall victim to this person once they are released from jail.
It is an act of love to forgive. And God is Just.
God is just, and yet his forgiveness for the repentant sinners only applies to...you know what? Never mind. I have already said this too many times.
What if the person committed the fault of child molestation and later felt deep remorse? Would you look upon them later and see them as good?
I would not know. I cannot see into people's hearts and minds. But if I could, and saw they had truly felt remorse for their actions, I might see them in a better light. However if a member of my family or friends had fallen victim to them, I do not think I could forgive. I would not wish hell and torture upon them, but I would not forgive.
But i know that a lot of people "question" God with an accusatory/ rebellious intent. They don't want to understand, they have already made up their own conclusions. All they are doing is ranting as God and they are no longer interested in any response God would provide them.
It is obvious you talking about me, and I guess to some extent, yes, I am accusing God. For a long time I tried my best to understand, but I couldn't. The mere creation of the world to begin with, and the creation of hell along with it, were unarguable points. What makes you think I - I mean 'they' - are no longer interested in any response God would provide? The truth is that there is no true response, as the response never comes from God directly. And if there is one, it is hidden by a lot of lies (for those telling you what you want to hear or perhaps the writers of the Bible fiddling with the words, forgetting things, or leaving things out) or differences between the responses themselves. Have you though that perhaps 'they' question not because they want to rebel or because they don't want to understand, but because the answers remain unsatisfactory, illogical, and simply matter-of-fact cruel and unjust?
A comment on hubpages.com that seemed relevant:
"You don't have to know how the computer works, but you could if you wanted to. The computer operates according to certain basic physical laws. Those basic laws are 100% understood. The same cannot be said of the basic laws, decisions, motivations and idiosyncrasies of God."
If one has issues similar to mine, I'm not sure how they can understand God's will unless they try not to think about it too much. What with the advancement of science and technology, people are thinking and questioning more. As a result, there is a decreasing amount of influence religion holds over people in the modern world. Fact of the matter is, science and fact provide a much better response than God or religion can.
A small example of this (which is relevant to something I heard of recently) would be the issue of demonic possession. Years ago, religion would have explained a person behaving strangely as being demonically possessed. An exorcism might even have been performed, with people trying to 'beat the devil out'. Now, in today's world, thanks to the advancement of medicine and psychology, we know it's not demonic possession, but a seizure or possibly a mental disorder (paranoid schizophrenia, psychosis, multiple personality disorder, bipolar disorder, etc).
In creating the universe I believe He is trying to prove something to the Angels.
But the angels are inferior to God. God created him, why should he need to prove anything to them? And why did he create the angels, if he knew they were to rebel?
If God is perfect, then that stands to reason that everything would be perfect, if nothing existed but God. For some strange reason, he felt compelled to create. He does not need us, and from what I understand, he gains nothing from the angels or from our worship. So why?
He does not destroy us now because He is still in the process of saving people from the lake of fire.
But in keeping us alive, more and more of us are being sent to the lake of fire than being saved. Again, what is the point?
God wants us to be our own selves not zombies.
So it was God's will to keep evil among us, because he wanted us to be 'ourselves'? And he what is he gaining from us being ourselves...?
From my personal experience the overwhelming majority of discussions on God are about objections to the expressed will of God.
For good reason (usually). A quick glance at the world around us or a few second of watching the news is enough to make us object to some of the things we hear are God's will.
Human beings like your very own self are willing to kill a paedophile but you have also stated that you are willing to forgive someone if they are full of remorse and regret their wrong.
That does not mean I would approve of sitting around and waiting for the pedophile to repent. How many actually do, really?
We read the bible in full and we can see that God is both a God of great wrath and even greater forgiveness, But He does not forgive one who is proud of their evil deed. Would You?
Well, I had already told you. If it were me, I wouldn't not created this big mess in the first place. Thus, I wouldn't need to make a decision about who was going to heaven or hell or who was proud of their evil deed or not, because there would be no guilty person to sentence.
Besides, as I mentioned, God is loving and forgiving to certain people. To believers of other religions (who might be just as repentant to their sins as Christians) he has no love or forgiveness to share. It's to hell with them. This is just?
Why would God create something and not care for His creation?
Why would God create something just to watch it burn?
First of all God did create a good world.
Actually no, I disagree. He did not. Nature it itself is inherently cruel and unjust. It's dog-eat-dog and strong-over-weak. Survival of the fittest. Even without humans, there is injustice and abuse and disease and suffering...Hardly 'good'.
Besides, God knew it would become corrupted, but made it anyway. Doesn't this mean he has some degree of responsibility over his actions? If an employer hires an unqualified employee to do an important task that would affect other people negatively if performed incorrectly, and the unqualified employee messes up, wouldn't the employer have to take responsibility for that? If you knew the employee was unqualified and unsuitable, but hired him/her anyway knowing the consequences, a very large part of it is your fault.
For me that proof comes from the bible.
This is proof for you, but not necessarily for other people.
Milkmoon:
You know what? Let me give it to you in a nutshell:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
God is able and willing to end evil When the time is right, When he has fully demonstrated to all He is justified in being the one and only God of all existence and satan and his angels are wrong in their claim to godhood.
I see. The answer finally came out. God has been letting this suffering go on since the beginning of time to prove to his creations that he's the best of them all? Sounds selfish, and slightly egocentric to me. Unfortunately, this brings me back to the point I made in my very first post:
"It's because the only thing God cares about, is himself."
(End of continuation)
So what of a judge carrying out judgement in court? Will God pass on the same judgement/punishment onto the judge for judging others, even though it was justified and was done for the protection of society and the people in it?
Because theft is what has caused the suffering, the loss, the injustice of having something taken from you that you have worked for.
I disagree. The thief is what caused the suffering, the loss, and the injustice of having something taken from you that you have worked for. Theft is a word, a thief is a person who made the decision to make that word an action.
Another point i want to make, no thief or rapist or murderer will be forgiven in eternity if they reject the atonement of the Messiah Jesus
But I thought a theif, rapist, or murderer would not be forgiven in eternity even if they accept the atonement of the Messiah Jesus? Theft, rape, and murder are very often willful sins, which from what I understand from your previous explanations, are unforgivable in the eyes of God. But I guess they repented, and murder and rape are not unforgivable, are they? Blasphemy is. For me, this says a lot.
"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for a reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed" - Albert Einstein
Yes a Murderer who came to believe these things and is repentant shall have eternity with God. There is only one unforgivable sin and murder is not it.
A murderer/pedophile who accepts the atonement of the Messiah Jesus is forgiven. In itself, there is no problem with that, as it could very well show true remorse and repentance. But this brings my thoughts back to the original issue, which is that if a person accepts the message of Jesus out of fear for the afterlife is forgiven, whereas a murderer/pedophile who shows remorse and repentance with no hope of gaining anything (heaven and the like) is not. Although I do understand your side of the argument, and as we already agreed on the issue of willful sin vs true repentance, I have come to somewhat better terms with this.
the person may well have been given over to a degenerate mind because of their rejection of the love of the truth
So what is the rule for people with emotional/personality/mental disorders? Just out of curiosity. Are they given the same judgement?
i would see to have the person arrested by the authorities. There is no need for me to kill the offender.
Yet there are many, many cases of offenders going to jail for committing these sort of crimes then being released a few years later only to do the same thing over again, and maybe even worse.
You cannot say God has never prevented incidences of child molestation.
I doubt it was God that prevented these incidents from happening when they were. It could very well be coincidence. How many innocent (and for the sake of argument) Christian children have had horrors done to them, no matter how pious they or their parents were? And let's say that the times where these incidents were prevented were not coincidence, but were actually God intervening. Why does he help some and not others? They are children, they should all be deserving of protection.
So now you want God to bring forth His wrath upon people? But i many of your posts you have been posting OT verses showing incidences of Gods wrath and calling Him evil for bringing forth His wrath. You cannot have it both ways.
I called God evil for bringing forth his wrath because, as I have said more than once, it was his reasons I did not agree with. Mass-murder is not the same as sentencing the truly guilty to death. Giving the death penalty to a serial killer like Ted Bundy is not the same as killing a whole group of people (children included) for the wrongs of a few. Or having youth mauled (possibly even murdered) for calling someone 'baldhead'.
Example from a website called 'skepticsannotatedbible.com':
Deuteronomy 3:12-17 "If thou shalt hear ... men ... saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known ... Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword."
Martin Luther used these verses to justify burning the synagogues and homes of the Jews.
Believing in another God is enough to have someone put to death. That is why I call God's wrath 'evil'. His definition (and possibly yours) is different than mine, and other people's.
he would also kill all the abortionists and everyone who agrees with abortion.
Aha, abortion. I figured it was inevitable, with all the wide range of topics we've been covering. I have a lot to say about that, so I will start from the beginning.
I believe in abortion. I believe in choice. You don't believe in abortion, but you believe that killing live children is more merciful than keeping them alive as slaves. So why would abortion be any different? In this case, abortion would be the better option, as you are not sentencing the child to a life of misery, due to being born to:
a) A family that can't afford to support it (maybe even buy it food)
b) Family that doesn't want it, and therefore does not want it
c) A life in an orphanage (which is very bad for a lot of children, especially in third-world countries)
d) A life on the street
e) Suffering because their parents neglected to use birth control or because -
f) They are the products of rape (and how could a decent person force a woman to birth a child she was also forced to conceive? It is her body, it is her right. She couldn't decide what went in, it only seems fair to let her decide what goes out. Rape victims in Congo, for example, not only find it very hard to love the children born of their attackers, but also have the added responsibility of trying to look after the child when there is no food, home, medical care, or the like)
These are the worst-case scenario possibilities. Obviously not all aborted children would be given this kind of lifestyle, some might have been born into perfectly normal families. But unwanted children are at a higher risk of abuse and neglect, and as you agreed on the mercy killing part before, I can't see why you oppose it now.
And besides, God has previously condoned the killing of children still in the womb. I will not ask for an interpretation of Hosea 9, as I can predict you will say this is simply God punishing Israel, and him saying "Even if they bear children, I will slay their cherished offspring" is a justified punishment. I will hover, mention Hosea 13. Although I did read this in context (Hosea 13 NIV) and though I do know this is also on God's anger against Israel, to me this: "They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open" is not only the murder of children in the womb, but also unspeakable cruelty inflicted upon the mothers. "Ripped open"?
You have rejected the love of the truth and called it evil so i would not expect you to forgive. But as a Christian that is what i am called to do and what i the right thing to do.
I do forgive, but pedophilia and rape are in my eyes, unforgivable. But I would forgive someone for calling me names, which is something God won't or can't seem to do, though.
i can say i believe i would be willing to forgive the ones that abused them.
Perhaps you would be willing to, but would you actually forgive them? And most importantly, would the victims of such abuse be willing or even able to forgive them for destroying their lives?
God made this world and this world is the way it currently is because God allows it to be. So then if you believe God exists then you should be seeking to understand Why God allows the world to be in the state it currently is in.
I already have a theory why. Didn't you read the title of this post?
You are expending all your energy and fury in ranting and raving at God ( and His followers) because the world is they way it currently is.
Am I ranting and raving? I was relatively calm when writing all of this. What gives you the impression that I was 'expending fury'?
at God ( and His followers)
His followers? Please quote whenever I ranted and raved at the followers specifically. I am not expanding energy by discussing this topic, although as I said in a previous post (not to you, though) the anger at the injustice has pretty much been there since I was a child. I didn't take kindly to hearing that some of the people I loved most were going to hell.
Now for one who believes in God can there be any profit in doing this?
Just because I believe in a greater power, a deeper meaning, doesn't mean I don't feel the need to question.
No it is an absolute waste of time because God must have a reason to allow the world to exist as it currently does.
Discussing religion is a waste of time if one does not believe in it? That makes sense :rolleyes:
If you believe that, then it would seem you are wasting your time as well, responding to me. I have accepted a couple things you have said, and understood them clearly, but I remain immovable on a few of these points.
I am not defending non-believers because I am one. Make up your mind do you believe in God or not?
I wasn't talking about non-belief in God. *sighs* According to you, I am a non-believer, because I have seemingly rejected the love of the truth and the atonement of the Messiah Jesus. When the Bible or religion speaks of non-believers, I am counted as one of them, as I follow no doctrine. There, you see?
Because if you believe in God then by that definition you are religious.
Wrong. You are getting confused. One can believe in God without being religious.
From the Wikipedia article on Spirituality:
Religion implies a particular faith tradition that includes acceptance of a metaphysical or supernatural reality;[8]:22, whereas spirituality is not necessarily bound to any particular religious tradition...
From beliefnet.com:
The confusion stems from the fact that the words "spiritual" and "religious" are really synonyms. Both connote belief in a Higher Power of some kind. Both also imply a desire to connect, or enter into a more intense relationship, with this Higher Power.
Before the 20th century the terms religious and spiritual were used more or less interchangeably. But a number of modern intellectual and cultural forces have accentuated differences between the "private" and "public" spheres of life. The increasing prestige of the sciences, the insights of modern biblical scholarship, and greater awareness of cultural relativism all made it more difficult for educated American to sustain unqualified loyalty to religious institutions. Many began to associate genuine faith with the "private" realm of personal experience rather than with the "public" realm of institutions, creeds, and rituals. The word 'spiritual'
gradually came to be associated with a private realm of thought and experience, while the word 'religious' came to be connected with the public realm of membership in religious institutions, participation in formal rituals, and adherence to official denominational doctrines.
There is a difference between being a believer in souls or in a higher power, and actually following and adhering to the rules and moral standards of organized religion. I simply do not believe in organized religion. Is that so hard to understand?
Jesus has a lot of tolerance for sinners and is more tolerant than you are. He can forgive paedophiles as an example.
You know, for the record, just because I can't forgive pedophiles doesn't mean I want them to go to hell. There is a lot of evidence that it is a mental illness and that most of these abusers were abused as children themselves. I had mentioned previously that I thought the idea of an eternal torment in hell was too harsh for anyone, especially since people are born with certain natures and are raised in certain environments that bring out the good or the bad. I advocate the death pentalty for these people simply to protect the well-being of other people who could very well fall victim to this person once they are released from jail.
It is an act of love to forgive. And God is Just.
God is just, and yet his forgiveness for the repentant sinners only applies to...you know what? Never mind. I have already said this too many times.
What if the person committed the fault of child molestation and later felt deep remorse? Would you look upon them later and see them as good?
I would not know. I cannot see into people's hearts and minds. But if I could, and saw they had truly felt remorse for their actions, I might see them in a better light. However if a member of my family or friends had fallen victim to them, I do not think I could forgive. I would not wish hell and torture upon them, but I would not forgive.
But i know that a lot of people "question" God with an accusatory/ rebellious intent. They don't want to understand, they have already made up their own conclusions. All they are doing is ranting as God and they are no longer interested in any response God would provide them.
It is obvious you talking about me, and I guess to some extent, yes, I am accusing God. For a long time I tried my best to understand, but I couldn't. The mere creation of the world to begin with, and the creation of hell along with it, were unarguable points. What makes you think I - I mean 'they' - are no longer interested in any response God would provide? The truth is that there is no true response, as the response never comes from God directly. And if there is one, it is hidden by a lot of lies (for those telling you what you want to hear or perhaps the writers of the Bible fiddling with the words, forgetting things, or leaving things out) or differences between the responses themselves. Have you though that perhaps 'they' question not because they want to rebel or because they don't want to understand, but because the answers remain unsatisfactory, illogical, and simply matter-of-fact cruel and unjust?
A comment on hubpages.com that seemed relevant:
"You don't have to know how the computer works, but you could if you wanted to. The computer operates according to certain basic physical laws. Those basic laws are 100% understood. The same cannot be said of the basic laws, decisions, motivations and idiosyncrasies of God."
If one has issues similar to mine, I'm not sure how they can understand God's will unless they try not to think about it too much. What with the advancement of science and technology, people are thinking and questioning more. As a result, there is a decreasing amount of influence religion holds over people in the modern world. Fact of the matter is, science and fact provide a much better response than God or religion can.
A small example of this (which is relevant to something I heard of recently) would be the issue of demonic possession. Years ago, religion would have explained a person behaving strangely as being demonically possessed. An exorcism might even have been performed, with people trying to 'beat the devil out'. Now, in today's world, thanks to the advancement of medicine and psychology, we know it's not demonic possession, but a seizure or possibly a mental disorder (paranoid schizophrenia, psychosis, multiple personality disorder, bipolar disorder, etc).
In creating the universe I believe He is trying to prove something to the Angels.
But the angels are inferior to God. God created him, why should he need to prove anything to them? And why did he create the angels, if he knew they were to rebel?
If God is perfect, then that stands to reason that everything would be perfect, if nothing existed but God. For some strange reason, he felt compelled to create. He does not need us, and from what I understand, he gains nothing from the angels or from our worship. So why?
He does not destroy us now because He is still in the process of saving people from the lake of fire.
But in keeping us alive, more and more of us are being sent to the lake of fire than being saved. Again, what is the point?
God wants us to be our own selves not zombies.
So it was God's will to keep evil among us, because he wanted us to be 'ourselves'? And he what is he gaining from us being ourselves...?
From my personal experience the overwhelming majority of discussions on God are about objections to the expressed will of God.
For good reason (usually). A quick glance at the world around us or a few second of watching the news is enough to make us object to some of the things we hear are God's will.
Human beings like your very own self are willing to kill a paedophile but you have also stated that you are willing to forgive someone if they are full of remorse and regret their wrong.
That does not mean I would approve of sitting around and waiting for the pedophile to repent. How many actually do, really?
We read the bible in full and we can see that God is both a God of great wrath and even greater forgiveness, But He does not forgive one who is proud of their evil deed. Would You?
Well, I had already told you. If it were me, I wouldn't not created this big mess in the first place. Thus, I wouldn't need to make a decision about who was going to heaven or hell or who was proud of their evil deed or not, because there would be no guilty person to sentence.
Besides, as I mentioned, God is loving and forgiving to certain people. To believers of other religions (who might be just as repentant to their sins as Christians) he has no love or forgiveness to share. It's to hell with them. This is just?
Why would God create something and not care for His creation?
Why would God create something just to watch it burn?
First of all God did create a good world.
Actually no, I disagree. He did not. Nature it itself is inherently cruel and unjust. It's dog-eat-dog and strong-over-weak. Survival of the fittest. Even without humans, there is injustice and abuse and disease and suffering...Hardly 'good'.
Besides, God knew it would become corrupted, but made it anyway. Doesn't this mean he has some degree of responsibility over his actions? If an employer hires an unqualified employee to do an important task that would affect other people negatively if performed incorrectly, and the unqualified employee messes up, wouldn't the employer have to take responsibility for that? If you knew the employee was unqualified and unsuitable, but hired him/her anyway knowing the consequences, a very large part of it is your fault.
For me that proof comes from the bible.
This is proof for you, but not necessarily for other people.
Milkmoon:
You know what? Let me give it to you in a nutshell:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
God is able and willing to end evil When the time is right, When he has fully demonstrated to all He is justified in being the one and only God of all existence and satan and his angels are wrong in their claim to godhood.
I see. The answer finally came out. God has been letting this suffering go on since the beginning of time to prove to his creations that he's the best of them all? Sounds selfish, and slightly egocentric to me. Unfortunately, this brings me back to the point I made in my very first post:
"It's because the only thing God cares about, is himself."
(End of continuation)
I do not want people to be agreeable, as it saves me the trouble of liking them - Austen
My Theory On God: Narcissism (And Why Evil Exists)
PS: I forgot to mention something.
You seem to think that mistake = wrongdoing that one regrets.
I think mistake means = something a person does wrong that they never intended to do.
Your Mistake seems to be closer to my Repentant. To be repentant is to regret a wrong one has done.
You would be incorrect in assuming this. People do not necessarily regret their mistakes, but then again, they don't necessarily regret their sins either. I use the word 'repentant' instead of 'mistake', because saying 'if someone made a repentant' is just bad English. As I already mentioned, I think mistake means (from Wikipedia, and not my own personal definition):
A 'mistake' is an error caused by a fault: the fault being misjudgment or carelessness
And I said previously,
Quote MilkMoon:
If I said 'error', that would be responsibility denial. Making a mistake means doing something you may or may not have known was wrong. You would have known it was wrong to run a stop sign, but you were in a hurry and not concentrating. That defines as 'mistake'. Sin is just specific to religion.
But just so that we don't keep arguing about the use of a word rather than focusing on the bigger issues, from now on I will just use the more flexible 'wrong' or 'fault'.
You seem to think that mistake = wrongdoing that one regrets.
I think mistake means = something a person does wrong that they never intended to do.
Your Mistake seems to be closer to my Repentant. To be repentant is to regret a wrong one has done.
You would be incorrect in assuming this. People do not necessarily regret their mistakes, but then again, they don't necessarily regret their sins either. I use the word 'repentant' instead of 'mistake', because saying 'if someone made a repentant' is just bad English. As I already mentioned, I think mistake means (from Wikipedia, and not my own personal definition):
A 'mistake' is an error caused by a fault: the fault being misjudgment or carelessness
And I said previously,
Quote MilkMoon:
If I said 'error', that would be responsibility denial. Making a mistake means doing something you may or may not have known was wrong. You would have known it was wrong to run a stop sign, but you were in a hurry and not concentrating. That defines as 'mistake'. Sin is just specific to religion.
But just so that we don't keep arguing about the use of a word rather than focusing on the bigger issues, from now on I will just use the more flexible 'wrong' or 'fault'.
I do not want people to be agreeable, as it saves me the trouble of liking them - Austen
My Theory On God: Narcissism (And Why Evil Exists)
Ok now I can start replying to some points you have made in your posts. I will not be replying to all points because some points will be just a repetition of points made earlier in this thread. I am not the kind of person who will waste time in a yes it is, not it isn’t, yes it is, not it isn’t the winner types the last post debate.
[QUOTE]Adstar said:
We are in a discussion, You and Me. Not you Me and the opinion of the author of that web site you quoted.
Milkmoon:
This is not about you and me. This is about religion and God. Surely it's not wrong of me to bring in a third opinion that clarifies my main issue?
I have no trouble expressing thoughts in my own words. You need someone else to express your thoughts? You don’t seem intellectually challenged to me. I would give up on discussing this topic if felt I was incapable of expressing myself.
[QUOTE]Adstar
God was talking about the tribe of Judah descendants of Israel people born into Torah Judaism. His chosen people.
Milkmoon:
Why did choose the people of Judah then, knowing that they would be evil and would follow the dictates of their hearts and walk after other Gods? God is supposedly omniscient, and he must have foreseen the sinning and disobedience of the Israelites, and yet he chose them expecting them to devout people in the mold of Abraham? ("You will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites." - Exodus 19:6)
Well obviously He knew they would rebel He called them a stiff necked people even before they entered the promised land, So why did He choose them, He chose them to make them an Example to the rest of the world. As in here everyone this is what I do to stiff necked people. A lot of people I talk to are under the misconception that the Bible is stating that the Hebrews where chosen because they where morally superior to other peoples. No way. The Holiness God is talking about is the Holiness that comes from Him working through them. I am a saint I am holy through God working through me. I am not holy as being without sin or being righteous, I am a sinner. So whoever carried the message of God is deemed Holy in relation to their purpose of giving that message.
[QUOTE]Adstar said:
Once we are given the Message of Jesus then we are responsible for our own response to His revelation.
Milkmoon:
And those who were not given the Message of Jesus?
It seems you have not retained the information I explained to you before in this very thread. Ok what did we agree happened after Jesus died? Did I not say that Jesus went to hell to preach to those who where in prison who where formerly rebellious in the times before Jesus? Yeah I did. So we established that people who had died and not had the opportunity to accept the message of Jesus where given that chance. Correct? So lets take that concept and move it to all people who have ever died not ever having had the opportunity to accept the message of Jesus. Simple?
[QUOTE]
Adstar:
God’s will defines what is good and what is evil .
Milkmoon:
Basically, those who are good are the ones who believe. Those who are evil are the ones who don't. It doesn't really matter what they did or what they were like as individuals. If you can't see the problem with that, then we might as well just agree to disagree.
Basically everyone is bad. Some bad people understand they are bad and acknowledge it and trust in the atonement of the Messiah Jesus for their salvation. Some people are bad and do not recognise they are bad and are offended when offered the atonement of the Messiah Jesus for their salvation. As you have already rejected the forgiveness of God through the atonement of the Messiah Jesus and stated that His grace is evil I doubt you will ever be given understanding in this. So I have little doubt we will end this discussion disagreeing on this.
[QUOTE]Adstar
Christians often love others by using the word of God to convict them of sin. So love can often be seen as hard love. Often it is seen as hate.
Milkmoon:
What kind of love can be seen as hate? The two are completely opposite emotions. The 'hard love' you are talking about sounds more like thinly disguised hatred.
Well I will give you one example. True Christians give warning about the abomination that is the homosexual sex act. Warning homosexuals that they need to acknowledge sodomy as sin and embrace the atonement of the Messiah Jesus to be forgiven. Now this act of Love toward homosexuals, giving them warning in the hope for their eternal salvation, is very often seen as hate speech.
You seem to see Love as being chained to admiration. That people can only be loved if they have something that others can admire about them. Of course babies don’t do anything to earn the love of their mothers. But oddly enough many mothers when given their babies for the first time love them with an intensity that is greater then they have felt for anyone else in their lives.
[QUOTE]
Adstar:
But if they did “cuddle” the nazis maybe some of the nazis would have become confused
Milkmoon:
...what do you know about Nazis?
Well i have given the message of Jesus in a nazi forum. Well they where (and still are) flesh and blood human beings, many of them reachable. Back then and still today. I would love to be used by God to save a nazi.
[QUOTE]
Adstar:
In the Stockholm syndrome one both loves the person and their sins. Christians love the sinner but do not love their sins.
Milkmoon:
How is this possible? Stockholm Syndrome might be, as you said, "when hostages or victims express empathy and have positive feelings towards their captors, sometimes to the point of defending them." (Wikipedia), but it might also be when people inexplicably 'love' their abusers. You can try to love the sinner but hate the sin, but I guarantee you will feel a degree of negative emotion towards the sinner for committing these sins, especially if it's against you and your loved ones, whether you admit it to yourself or not.
Well when I do feel hate towards people I realise I have fallen down and sinned against the will of God. I thank God for His forgiveness towards me for that sin along with all my other sins. I do not seek to justify my hatred for the sinner. That would be rebellion in spirit against Gods will.
Milkmoon:
Love is a positive emotion, so if you 'love' your abusers, it means you hold positive feelings towards them, while is one of the features of Stockholm Syndrome. You were talking about love, and not forgiveness, so yes, if you love your torturer, this would be Stockholm Syndrome.
Well Christian forgiveness is not related to the Stockholm Syndrome. As I stated before.
Milkmoon:
Now, just to clarify, forgiving I can understand. I do think that some things are unforgivable, and that the person affected should not feel compelled to forgive when they have every right to their anger. What I find absurd is how you're expected to go so far as to 'love your enemies'.
Well of course your ability to forgive is limited. And you have no understanding of the depth of love and forgiveness God has, that’s why you called it evil before and now add the absurd tag to it. In a biblical sense you are both the Jew and the Gentile I have bolded in the following scriptures.
1 Corinthians 1
18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:
“ I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.”
20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22 For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
[QUOTE]Adstar:
Yes He put them into hell because He could not compromise His absolute justice.
Milkmoon:
I draw a line at the word 'justice'. I have tried to explain why I see the fact that God throws the ignorant, and therefore innocent, into hell without them having committed a wrong as something unjust, but again, I guess we just have to agree to disagree
No innocent will ever go to the eternal lake of fire. And the ignorant ones? Again I remind you of Jesus going to Hell to preach to the ones who had not had the opportunity to accept the Message of Jesus. It never ceases to maze me how intelligent people are blocked in their understanding, even when you inform them again and again in clear words. I should not be amazed really. You have rejected the love of the truth already so the bible states that those who do so are given over to deception.
[QUOTE]Adstar:
I believe Moses made a call at that moment to keep the girls alive because once they died out the Midianites would then be destroyed. So it turned into a delayed destruction, but still destruction.
Milkmoon:
That doesn't make sense. Why not kill them all in one go, if the goal was to destroy them?
It made sense to Moses.
Remember before this time when the Jews first came to the border of the promised land they refused to go in. God told Moses and a few others to stand aside so He could destroy the Jews and raise a nation from the few. Moses pleaded for their lives and God relented. But they where made to wander in the wilderness for 40 years (a generation) till all who had taken part in the rebellion had died. So God had allowed a delayed judgement. So Moses would have been using that example as a guide for His order to keep the girls alive as servants. In effect they where destroyed as a people when the girls grew old and died.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
To be Continued..
[QUOTE]Adstar said:
We are in a discussion, You and Me. Not you Me and the opinion of the author of that web site you quoted.
Milkmoon:
This is not about you and me. This is about religion and God. Surely it's not wrong of me to bring in a third opinion that clarifies my main issue?
I have no trouble expressing thoughts in my own words. You need someone else to express your thoughts? You don’t seem intellectually challenged to me. I would give up on discussing this topic if felt I was incapable of expressing myself.
[QUOTE]Adstar
God was talking about the tribe of Judah descendants of Israel people born into Torah Judaism. His chosen people.
Milkmoon:
Why did choose the people of Judah then, knowing that they would be evil and would follow the dictates of their hearts and walk after other Gods? God is supposedly omniscient, and he must have foreseen the sinning and disobedience of the Israelites, and yet he chose them expecting them to devout people in the mold of Abraham? ("You will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites." - Exodus 19:6)
Well obviously He knew they would rebel He called them a stiff necked people even before they entered the promised land, So why did He choose them, He chose them to make them an Example to the rest of the world. As in here everyone this is what I do to stiff necked people. A lot of people I talk to are under the misconception that the Bible is stating that the Hebrews where chosen because they where morally superior to other peoples. No way. The Holiness God is talking about is the Holiness that comes from Him working through them. I am a saint I am holy through God working through me. I am not holy as being without sin or being righteous, I am a sinner. So whoever carried the message of God is deemed Holy in relation to their purpose of giving that message.
[QUOTE]Adstar said:
Once we are given the Message of Jesus then we are responsible for our own response to His revelation.
Milkmoon:
And those who were not given the Message of Jesus?
It seems you have not retained the information I explained to you before in this very thread. Ok what did we agree happened after Jesus died? Did I not say that Jesus went to hell to preach to those who where in prison who where formerly rebellious in the times before Jesus? Yeah I did. So we established that people who had died and not had the opportunity to accept the message of Jesus where given that chance. Correct? So lets take that concept and move it to all people who have ever died not ever having had the opportunity to accept the message of Jesus. Simple?
[QUOTE]
Adstar:
God’s will defines what is good and what is evil .
Milkmoon:
Basically, those who are good are the ones who believe. Those who are evil are the ones who don't. It doesn't really matter what they did or what they were like as individuals. If you can't see the problem with that, then we might as well just agree to disagree.
Basically everyone is bad. Some bad people understand they are bad and acknowledge it and trust in the atonement of the Messiah Jesus for their salvation. Some people are bad and do not recognise they are bad and are offended when offered the atonement of the Messiah Jesus for their salvation. As you have already rejected the forgiveness of God through the atonement of the Messiah Jesus and stated that His grace is evil I doubt you will ever be given understanding in this. So I have little doubt we will end this discussion disagreeing on this.
[QUOTE]Adstar
Christians often love others by using the word of God to convict them of sin. So love can often be seen as hard love. Often it is seen as hate.
Milkmoon:
What kind of love can be seen as hate? The two are completely opposite emotions. The 'hard love' you are talking about sounds more like thinly disguised hatred.
Well I will give you one example. True Christians give warning about the abomination that is the homosexual sex act. Warning homosexuals that they need to acknowledge sodomy as sin and embrace the atonement of the Messiah Jesus to be forgiven. Now this act of Love toward homosexuals, giving them warning in the hope for their eternal salvation, is very often seen as hate speech.
You seem to see Love as being chained to admiration. That people can only be loved if they have something that others can admire about them. Of course babies don’t do anything to earn the love of their mothers. But oddly enough many mothers when given their babies for the first time love them with an intensity that is greater then they have felt for anyone else in their lives.
[QUOTE]
Adstar:
But if they did “cuddle” the nazis maybe some of the nazis would have become confused
Milkmoon:
...what do you know about Nazis?
Well i have given the message of Jesus in a nazi forum. Well they where (and still are) flesh and blood human beings, many of them reachable. Back then and still today. I would love to be used by God to save a nazi.
[QUOTE]
Adstar:
In the Stockholm syndrome one both loves the person and their sins. Christians love the sinner but do not love their sins.
Milkmoon:
How is this possible? Stockholm Syndrome might be, as you said, "when hostages or victims express empathy and have positive feelings towards their captors, sometimes to the point of defending them." (Wikipedia), but it might also be when people inexplicably 'love' their abusers. You can try to love the sinner but hate the sin, but I guarantee you will feel a degree of negative emotion towards the sinner for committing these sins, especially if it's against you and your loved ones, whether you admit it to yourself or not.
Well when I do feel hate towards people I realise I have fallen down and sinned against the will of God. I thank God for His forgiveness towards me for that sin along with all my other sins. I do not seek to justify my hatred for the sinner. That would be rebellion in spirit against Gods will.
Milkmoon:
Love is a positive emotion, so if you 'love' your abusers, it means you hold positive feelings towards them, while is one of the features of Stockholm Syndrome. You were talking about love, and not forgiveness, so yes, if you love your torturer, this would be Stockholm Syndrome.
Well Christian forgiveness is not related to the Stockholm Syndrome. As I stated before.
Milkmoon:
Now, just to clarify, forgiving I can understand. I do think that some things are unforgivable, and that the person affected should not feel compelled to forgive when they have every right to their anger. What I find absurd is how you're expected to go so far as to 'love your enemies'.
Well of course your ability to forgive is limited. And you have no understanding of the depth of love and forgiveness God has, that’s why you called it evil before and now add the absurd tag to it. In a biblical sense you are both the Jew and the Gentile I have bolded in the following scriptures.
1 Corinthians 1
18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:
“ I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.”
20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22 For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
[QUOTE]Adstar:
Yes He put them into hell because He could not compromise His absolute justice.
Milkmoon:
I draw a line at the word 'justice'. I have tried to explain why I see the fact that God throws the ignorant, and therefore innocent, into hell without them having committed a wrong as something unjust, but again, I guess we just have to agree to disagree
No innocent will ever go to the eternal lake of fire. And the ignorant ones? Again I remind you of Jesus going to Hell to preach to the ones who had not had the opportunity to accept the Message of Jesus. It never ceases to maze me how intelligent people are blocked in their understanding, even when you inform them again and again in clear words. I should not be amazed really. You have rejected the love of the truth already so the bible states that those who do so are given over to deception.
[QUOTE]Adstar:
I believe Moses made a call at that moment to keep the girls alive because once they died out the Midianites would then be destroyed. So it turned into a delayed destruction, but still destruction.
Milkmoon:
That doesn't make sense. Why not kill them all in one go, if the goal was to destroy them?
It made sense to Moses.
Remember before this time when the Jews first came to the border of the promised land they refused to go in. God told Moses and a few others to stand aside so He could destroy the Jews and raise a nation from the few. Moses pleaded for their lives and God relented. But they where made to wander in the wilderness for 40 years (a generation) till all who had taken part in the rebellion had died. So God had allowed a delayed judgement. So Moses would have been using that example as a guide for His order to keep the girls alive as servants. In effect they where destroyed as a people when the girls grew old and died.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
To be Continued..
My Theory On God: Narcissism (And Why Evil Exists)
Ok reply to the next post this is the second one.
[QUOTE]Adstar:
Christians are not called to put people to death. Don’t get Christianity and islam mixed up.
Milkmoon:
Have you forgotten what you said? "just like atheists mock and denigrate Christians who are giving a serious message of God are worthy of being put to death."
I said they are worthy of being put to death. Just because I say one is worthy does not mean I am saying that I would carry it out. You have taken my statement and interpreted it to say something more that it was saying in an attempt to project my stance to be something it is Not. Please be honest when you quote me.
Milkmoon:
I did not say Christians were actually being called to put people to death. You said that some were worthy of being put to death, so that was what I was discussing. The worthiness of being put to death, not the actual command.
Well that is a basic foundational concept. People either agree with it or not.
[QUOTE]Adstar:
If a Christian does spit on and denigrate someone they are giving a message of God to then yes they are worthy of death.
Milkmoon:
Very well then, at least it goes both ways. However, I still think that whichever side initiated it, the death penalty is a bit too violent and severe a punishment for a harsh word. And besides, back to a previous point, why would you say something like that to start with? I thought you were supposed to love your enemies? How can you want someone you 'love' to be put to death, or think they are worthy of it?
Where did I say I wanted them put to death? Again you take my quote and add meanings to it to expand what I say into areas that you then can go on and use as a point to attack.
No I do not want them put to death and I am getting very offended by you continuing to add words to my message.
What I am doing by stating that they are worthy of being put to death is giving them a WARNING of Gods uncompromising perfect standards. I want these people to realise they’re under a death penalty, to motivate them to repent of their deeds and obtain redemption.
Milkmoon:
Can you understand why I think that 'love your enemies' is illogical? I'm not saying you have to agree with it, but can you see what I meant now?
You are simply re-confirming to me your limited understanding. That’s why you find it illogical. Because you do not have the spiritual ability to understand.
[QUOTE]
Adstar:
I am a Christian. I do not deny homosexuals rights. I do not attempt to outlaw abortion. I do not attempt to deny woman their rights. I do not try to impose my beliefs on other people. Remember we are discussing things between you and me. Not between you and me and everyone who calls themselves a Christian.
Milkmoon:
Why are you narrowing this down to you and me again? Look at the title. It's about God, and therefore also about religion in general. It's not 'Adstar vs. MilkMoon'. You cannot come to a conclusion based on yourself, as that would give you a broad generalization that would not necessarily be true. Just because you are not like that, that doesn't mean that others aren't either.
I am only accountable to my conscience to God. I am not interested in defending people I do not agree with. What you are demanding is like me demanding a hindu defend the teachings and actions of muslims, that would not be wise of me. So I will only be speaking for my faith to God.
[QUOTE]Adstar:
In doing this they cease to be believers of Jesus and therefore have no atonement for their sins.
Milkmoon:
They have no atonement for their sins though they accepted the message of Jesus? Even if they didn't necessarily take part in a justifiable war?
They did not accept His message about loving their enemies. Therefore they believe in a jesus that condones carnal conflict. Such a jesus does not exist, therefore they believe in another jesus. Millions want Jesus to be their Redeemer but few accept Him as their Lord. Jesus is Both lord and Redeemer to His followers.
Jesus said:
John 6
63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.
All His Words they are not a smorgasbord.
Milkmoon:
Poor choice of example. You are getting Christianity mixed up with islam again.
I was speaking of hypocrisy in general, I didn't specify Christianity or Islam. Perhaps a better choice of example would have been a person who watches pornography.
You could have mentioned kleptomaniacs or any condition where a person has a powerful addiction to a deviant behaviour. The same basic principle works for all of them. If the one who is addicted hates their addiction ( and pornography is addictive to many) they agree with God that their sin is sin they are at one with God in spirit while being sinners in the flesh. It is therefore not hypocritical for a sinner to reveal sin to others if that sinner also acknowledges their own sin to be sin.
The main point of revealing sin is to let the sinner know they need to be forgiven.
[QUOTE]Adstar:
They would still be forgiven because it was the desire of their flesh that was driving them to sin not the will of their conscience to God.
Milkmoon:
But don't humans have free will? We are not 'zombies', as you said previously. Our bodies don't control us, we have a choice to make. Unless someone has a disorder that comes with substance abuse, then certainly, it is only fair to forgive.
It is the Christian view that we are all faulty human beings doomed to sin as soon as we gain the knowledge of good and evil. We do have free will to agree with or disagree with sin. We do have the free will to fight the good fight against our own sin to reduce our sinning and increase our loving. But no human can eliminate their sin 100% and be 100% loving. Yes some people put in a grand effort and that is a very noble thing worthy of admiration, But again we are dealing with God here and scoring 99% without being covered by Gods atonement for the 1% will see one marked as a fail.
[QUOTE]Adstar:
There is nothing natural about homosexuality it runs against Gods law and it even runs against the Darwinian imperative for humans to successfully reproduce and carry on their genes. So on both counts it is an abomination.
Milkmoon:
Ah, but with animals for example, homosexual behaviour does, to an extent, increase chances of survival and the passing on of genes. Though it is obviously not used for reproduction, it is used for strengthening social bonding, resolving conflicts, or expressing domination. Homosexuality is found amongst almost all animal species. Bonobos, who have over 98% of genetic material in common with human beings, are the perfect example of this. The strengthening of social groups ties in with Darwin's theory of carrying on genes, because if social groups of monkeys, for example, were always in conflict, most of them would die out. And as for God's law, didn't God create the animals, and set laws for their survival and behaviour, etc? If he was so opposed to the idea of homosexuality, why is it something that is so frequently found in nature and almost necessary among certain groups of animals?
Well as a nature worshipper I can see where your thinking is at. But as a Christian I do not believe nature is perfect. I believe nature was contaminated by the coming of the knowledge of good and evil and therefore nature is now also in a faulty state. In prophecy the eternal kingdom describes a nature that has been restored to a perfect state, it states:
Isaiah 11
6 “ The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb,
The leopard shall lie down with the young goat,
The calf and the young lion and the fatling together;
And a little child shall lead them.
7 The cow and the bear shall graze;
Their young ones shall lie down together;
And the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
8 The nursing child shall play by the cobra’s hole,
And the weaned child shall put his hand in the viper’s den.
9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain,
For the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD
As the waters cover the sea.
So the Kingdom will be a vegetarian kingdom. No more predation.
[QUOTE]Adstar:
So it is Not saying that people who commit adultery or homosexual sin shall not enter the kingdom of heaven. It is saying that those who commit these sins with wicked wilful intent shall not enter the kingdom of Heaven.
Milkmoon:
Aha, but this way, you are making it sound like your definition of 'mistake'. You say that people who commit adultery are not necessarily barred from entering the kingdom of heaven. To quote you "i don't know how but we seemed to
fall down together and what do you know we ended all
naked and having sex. I got no idea how that happened
and then i just kind of had her hubby mistakenly killed"
But it was all just a mistake really." When someone commits adultery, this was with wilful intent. It's not 'oh we fell down together and ended up all naked' or 'we were stumbling around during the netball game because we were uncoordinated'. Can someone commit adultery with pure intent? Maybe they are having sex with someone is not their spouse for charity purposes, perhaps?
You cannot see the difference between one person seeking to avoid an act but still being affected by a craving to commit that act and in a weak moment going out and doing it, then regretting it. Compared to a person who runs around looking for every opportunity to do that act and punching their fist in the air in celebration when they score. I assure you there is a difference. And God knows it.
[QUOTE]
Adstar:
But if a Christian gets a divorce for some other reason they are not justified in getting remarried. So I do not agree with any remarriage after an unlawful divorce.
Milkmoon:
But the churches have no problem remarrying these people even after an unlawful divorce, as long as it's between a man and a woman, not a man and a man or a woman and a woman, even though technically both will be barred from the kingdom of heaven.
Well yes I agree with you. I am not an apologist for churches that remarry people who have taken part in unlawful divorce. Again I speak for my conscience to God. Not theirs.
Milkmoon:
And why the restrictions on divorce anyway?
Well a lot of people come up with reasoning but I am not definite on any of them either positive or negative. I suspect the union between a man and a woman is far more significant then just a way of reproduction. There is probably something spiritual about it. Sorry I cannot give you a definite answer. This is one where my trusting in God is needed. He has not revealed to me the reason why.
[QUOTE]Adstar:
Matthew 5:27 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
Milkmoon:
The person did not actually commit adultery, but since they looked at someone to lust for them, they have. So they are guilty of a crime they didn't commit, even if the 'bashed the thought', but the Bible was referring to the unrepentant adulterers when it was talking of adulterers being barred from the kingdom of heaven?
Yes.
Unrepentant adulterers do not “bash the thought” Only adulterers who acknowledge adultery to be wrong in their spirit “bash the thought” as you put it. Both the one who bashes the thought and the one who revels in the thought are adulterers. But the one who bashes the thought has the right attitude, the right spirit.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
[QUOTE]Adstar:
Christians are not called to put people to death. Don’t get Christianity and islam mixed up.
Milkmoon:
Have you forgotten what you said? "just like atheists mock and denigrate Christians who are giving a serious message of God are worthy of being put to death."
I said they are worthy of being put to death. Just because I say one is worthy does not mean I am saying that I would carry it out. You have taken my statement and interpreted it to say something more that it was saying in an attempt to project my stance to be something it is Not. Please be honest when you quote me.
Milkmoon:
I did not say Christians were actually being called to put people to death. You said that some were worthy of being put to death, so that was what I was discussing. The worthiness of being put to death, not the actual command.
Well that is a basic foundational concept. People either agree with it or not.
[QUOTE]Adstar:
If a Christian does spit on and denigrate someone they are giving a message of God to then yes they are worthy of death.
Milkmoon:
Very well then, at least it goes both ways. However, I still think that whichever side initiated it, the death penalty is a bit too violent and severe a punishment for a harsh word. And besides, back to a previous point, why would you say something like that to start with? I thought you were supposed to love your enemies? How can you want someone you 'love' to be put to death, or think they are worthy of it?
Where did I say I wanted them put to death? Again you take my quote and add meanings to it to expand what I say into areas that you then can go on and use as a point to attack.
No I do not want them put to death and I am getting very offended by you continuing to add words to my message.
What I am doing by stating that they are worthy of being put to death is giving them a WARNING of Gods uncompromising perfect standards. I want these people to realise they’re under a death penalty, to motivate them to repent of their deeds and obtain redemption.
Milkmoon:
Can you understand why I think that 'love your enemies' is illogical? I'm not saying you have to agree with it, but can you see what I meant now?
You are simply re-confirming to me your limited understanding. That’s why you find it illogical. Because you do not have the spiritual ability to understand.
[QUOTE]
Adstar:
I am a Christian. I do not deny homosexuals rights. I do not attempt to outlaw abortion. I do not attempt to deny woman their rights. I do not try to impose my beliefs on other people. Remember we are discussing things between you and me. Not between you and me and everyone who calls themselves a Christian.
Milkmoon:
Why are you narrowing this down to you and me again? Look at the title. It's about God, and therefore also about religion in general. It's not 'Adstar vs. MilkMoon'. You cannot come to a conclusion based on yourself, as that would give you a broad generalization that would not necessarily be true. Just because you are not like that, that doesn't mean that others aren't either.
I am only accountable to my conscience to God. I am not interested in defending people I do not agree with. What you are demanding is like me demanding a hindu defend the teachings and actions of muslims, that would not be wise of me. So I will only be speaking for my faith to God.
[QUOTE]Adstar:
In doing this they cease to be believers of Jesus and therefore have no atonement for their sins.
Milkmoon:
They have no atonement for their sins though they accepted the message of Jesus? Even if they didn't necessarily take part in a justifiable war?
They did not accept His message about loving their enemies. Therefore they believe in a jesus that condones carnal conflict. Such a jesus does not exist, therefore they believe in another jesus. Millions want Jesus to be their Redeemer but few accept Him as their Lord. Jesus is Both lord and Redeemer to His followers.
Jesus said:
John 6
63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.
All His Words they are not a smorgasbord.
Milkmoon:
Poor choice of example. You are getting Christianity mixed up with islam again.
I was speaking of hypocrisy in general, I didn't specify Christianity or Islam. Perhaps a better choice of example would have been a person who watches pornography.
You could have mentioned kleptomaniacs or any condition where a person has a powerful addiction to a deviant behaviour. The same basic principle works for all of them. If the one who is addicted hates their addiction ( and pornography is addictive to many) they agree with God that their sin is sin they are at one with God in spirit while being sinners in the flesh. It is therefore not hypocritical for a sinner to reveal sin to others if that sinner also acknowledges their own sin to be sin.
The main point of revealing sin is to let the sinner know they need to be forgiven.
[QUOTE]Adstar:
They would still be forgiven because it was the desire of their flesh that was driving them to sin not the will of their conscience to God.
Milkmoon:
But don't humans have free will? We are not 'zombies', as you said previously. Our bodies don't control us, we have a choice to make. Unless someone has a disorder that comes with substance abuse, then certainly, it is only fair to forgive.
It is the Christian view that we are all faulty human beings doomed to sin as soon as we gain the knowledge of good and evil. We do have free will to agree with or disagree with sin. We do have the free will to fight the good fight against our own sin to reduce our sinning and increase our loving. But no human can eliminate their sin 100% and be 100% loving. Yes some people put in a grand effort and that is a very noble thing worthy of admiration, But again we are dealing with God here and scoring 99% without being covered by Gods atonement for the 1% will see one marked as a fail.
[QUOTE]Adstar:
There is nothing natural about homosexuality it runs against Gods law and it even runs against the Darwinian imperative for humans to successfully reproduce and carry on their genes. So on both counts it is an abomination.
Milkmoon:
Ah, but with animals for example, homosexual behaviour does, to an extent, increase chances of survival and the passing on of genes. Though it is obviously not used for reproduction, it is used for strengthening social bonding, resolving conflicts, or expressing domination. Homosexuality is found amongst almost all animal species. Bonobos, who have over 98% of genetic material in common with human beings, are the perfect example of this. The strengthening of social groups ties in with Darwin's theory of carrying on genes, because if social groups of monkeys, for example, were always in conflict, most of them would die out. And as for God's law, didn't God create the animals, and set laws for their survival and behaviour, etc? If he was so opposed to the idea of homosexuality, why is it something that is so frequently found in nature and almost necessary among certain groups of animals?
Well as a nature worshipper I can see where your thinking is at. But as a Christian I do not believe nature is perfect. I believe nature was contaminated by the coming of the knowledge of good and evil and therefore nature is now also in a faulty state. In prophecy the eternal kingdom describes a nature that has been restored to a perfect state, it states:
Isaiah 11
6 “ The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb,
The leopard shall lie down with the young goat,
The calf and the young lion and the fatling together;
And a little child shall lead them.
7 The cow and the bear shall graze;
Their young ones shall lie down together;
And the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
8 The nursing child shall play by the cobra’s hole,
And the weaned child shall put his hand in the viper’s den.
9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain,
For the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD
As the waters cover the sea.
So the Kingdom will be a vegetarian kingdom. No more predation.
[QUOTE]Adstar:
So it is Not saying that people who commit adultery or homosexual sin shall not enter the kingdom of heaven. It is saying that those who commit these sins with wicked wilful intent shall not enter the kingdom of Heaven.
Milkmoon:
Aha, but this way, you are making it sound like your definition of 'mistake'. You say that people who commit adultery are not necessarily barred from entering the kingdom of heaven. To quote you "i don't know how but we seemed to
fall down together and what do you know we ended all
naked and having sex. I got no idea how that happened
and then i just kind of had her hubby mistakenly killed"
But it was all just a mistake really." When someone commits adultery, this was with wilful intent. It's not 'oh we fell down together and ended up all naked' or 'we were stumbling around during the netball game because we were uncoordinated'. Can someone commit adultery with pure intent? Maybe they are having sex with someone is not their spouse for charity purposes, perhaps?
You cannot see the difference between one person seeking to avoid an act but still being affected by a craving to commit that act and in a weak moment going out and doing it, then regretting it. Compared to a person who runs around looking for every opportunity to do that act and punching their fist in the air in celebration when they score. I assure you there is a difference. And God knows it.
[QUOTE]
Adstar:
But if a Christian gets a divorce for some other reason they are not justified in getting remarried. So I do not agree with any remarriage after an unlawful divorce.
Milkmoon:
But the churches have no problem remarrying these people even after an unlawful divorce, as long as it's between a man and a woman, not a man and a man or a woman and a woman, even though technically both will be barred from the kingdom of heaven.
Well yes I agree with you. I am not an apologist for churches that remarry people who have taken part in unlawful divorce. Again I speak for my conscience to God. Not theirs.
Milkmoon:
And why the restrictions on divorce anyway?
Well a lot of people come up with reasoning but I am not definite on any of them either positive or negative. I suspect the union between a man and a woman is far more significant then just a way of reproduction. There is probably something spiritual about it. Sorry I cannot give you a definite answer. This is one where my trusting in God is needed. He has not revealed to me the reason why.
[QUOTE]Adstar:
Matthew 5:27 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
Milkmoon:
The person did not actually commit adultery, but since they looked at someone to lust for them, they have. So they are guilty of a crime they didn't commit, even if the 'bashed the thought', but the Bible was referring to the unrepentant adulterers when it was talking of adulterers being barred from the kingdom of heaven?
Yes.
Unrepentant adulterers do not “bash the thought” Only adulterers who acknowledge adultery to be wrong in their spirit “bash the thought” as you put it. Both the one who bashes the thought and the one who revels in the thought are adulterers. But the one who bashes the thought has the right attitude, the right spirit.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
My Theory On God: Narcissism (And Why Evil Exists)
Adstar:
God agrees not to carry out judgement upon me and i agree not to carry out judgement upon other people.
Milkmoon:
So what of a judge carrying out judgement in court? Will God pass on the same judgement/punishment onto the judge for judging others, even though it was justified and was done for the protection of society and the people in it?
Yes. The Judge is part of the worldly authority and the worldly authority is of satan. The judge is in rebellion against the will of Jesus and therefore is not covered by the atonement of Jesus. You can add jurors, police, defence force personal, politicians and detention centre officers to that list also.
Milkmoon:
A murderer/pedophile who accepts the atonement of the Messiah Jesus is forgiven. In itself, there is no problem with that, as it could very well show true remorse and repentance. But this brings my thoughts back to the original issue, which is that if a person accepts the message of Jesus out of fear for the afterlife is forgiven, whereas a murderer/pedophile who shows remorse and repentance with no hope of gaining anything (heaven and the like) is not. Although I do understand your side of the argument, and as we already agreed on the issue of willful sin vs true repentance, I have come to somewhat better terms with this.
To my thinking the person who shows remorse and repentance is exquisitely open to the message of the Atonement of the Messiah Jesus through remorse and repentance. They will go for it like a baby to their mothers breast.
Fear of hell has never really been a good bonding agent between Christians and God. Neither has God’s promise of eternal existence with Him. If it was then all the preachers would have to do is preach fire and brimstone to scare people and then preach eternal paradise to entice them. But as we see people cannot be kept in a life long state of fear and expectation of paradise. Millions of believers fall away from such religions who focus on punishment and reward.
I embrace God because of the rightness of His law and even more so because of the Love He has shown for me. Love and Goodness beats fear and enticement by a long way.
[QUOTE]
Adstar:
the person may well have been given over to a degenerate mind because of their rejection of the love of the truth
Milkmoon:
So what is the rule for people with emotional/personality/mental disorders? Just out of curiosity. Are they given the same judgement?
From observation a lot of people who suffer mental disorders may not have fully come to the knowledge of good and evil. People like Down Syndrome sufferers seem to be childlike in understanding. There is scripture that states that to whom much is given much will be required. Taking this as a guide it would seem that to whom little is given little will be required. And if nothing is given well?
Think back to what I have said about those who have never received the Message of Jesus in their lives. I stated that they would not be condemned, this follows on the same principle. They will be given an opportunity after death I believe. Also the scriptures about degenerate minds is not talking about people with mental problems like Down Syndrome it is talking about a morally degenerate minds i believe.
[QUOTE]Adstar:
i would see to have the person arrested by the authorities. There is no need for me to kill the offender.
Milkmoon:
Yet there are many, many cases of offenders going to jail for committing these sort of crimes then being released a few years later only to do the same thing over again, and maybe even worse.
And this is the fault of the system correct? This is an entirely different subject with no real bearing on questions about God.
I will say I do not believe in the punishment based legal system of man. I would prefer to see a system that removed people from society for as long as they where assessed to be a threat to society or incapable of functioning in society with self-control. That would mean no fixed sentences for crimes. A person would be incarcerated until such time as the system deemed them reformed and capable of existing in society in a peaceful manner. So two people could go into such a system for the same crime, one could be out in 6 months while the other could spend the rest of their lives in the system.
Anyway that’s got nothing to do with the topic of God.
[QUOTE]
Adstar:
You cannot say God has never prevented incidences of child molestation.
Milkmoon:
I doubt it was God that prevented these incidents from happening when they were. It could very well be coincidence. How many innocent (and for the sake of argument) Christian children have had horrors done to them, no matter how pious they or their parents were? And let's say that the times where these incidents were prevented were not coincidence, but were actually God intervening. Why does he help some and not others? They are children, they should all be deserving of protection.
I do not know why He intervenes in one case and not in all. So I cannot answer that. I guess in most cases He does not. We live in a world of sin and suffering, I am glad when God intervenes sometimes. Better some intervention than nothing. This is another area where my trust in God is needed. I cannot answer all questions because I have not been given all the answers.
[QUOTE]Adstar:
i can say i believe i would be willing to forgive the ones that abused them.
Milkmoon:
Perhaps you would be willing to, but would you actually forgive them? And most importantly, would the victims of such abuse be willing or even able to forgive them for destroying their lives?
Well the test would come when it came wouldn’t it. But if i failed, it would be my wrong, my failure to forgive. Each person has to face the crunch when it comes. But I do know people who have forgiven terrible wrongs.
Looking at the rest of your points I see a lot of restating the same arguments that we have already gone over. I am not one to running around in circles. If I see anything new from you, I will endeavour to reply.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
God agrees not to carry out judgement upon me and i agree not to carry out judgement upon other people.
Milkmoon:
So what of a judge carrying out judgement in court? Will God pass on the same judgement/punishment onto the judge for judging others, even though it was justified and was done for the protection of society and the people in it?
Yes. The Judge is part of the worldly authority and the worldly authority is of satan. The judge is in rebellion against the will of Jesus and therefore is not covered by the atonement of Jesus. You can add jurors, police, defence force personal, politicians and detention centre officers to that list also.
Milkmoon:
A murderer/pedophile who accepts the atonement of the Messiah Jesus is forgiven. In itself, there is no problem with that, as it could very well show true remorse and repentance. But this brings my thoughts back to the original issue, which is that if a person accepts the message of Jesus out of fear for the afterlife is forgiven, whereas a murderer/pedophile who shows remorse and repentance with no hope of gaining anything (heaven and the like) is not. Although I do understand your side of the argument, and as we already agreed on the issue of willful sin vs true repentance, I have come to somewhat better terms with this.
To my thinking the person who shows remorse and repentance is exquisitely open to the message of the Atonement of the Messiah Jesus through remorse and repentance. They will go for it like a baby to their mothers breast.
Fear of hell has never really been a good bonding agent between Christians and God. Neither has God’s promise of eternal existence with Him. If it was then all the preachers would have to do is preach fire and brimstone to scare people and then preach eternal paradise to entice them. But as we see people cannot be kept in a life long state of fear and expectation of paradise. Millions of believers fall away from such religions who focus on punishment and reward.
I embrace God because of the rightness of His law and even more so because of the Love He has shown for me. Love and Goodness beats fear and enticement by a long way.
[QUOTE]
Adstar:
the person may well have been given over to a degenerate mind because of their rejection of the love of the truth
Milkmoon:
So what is the rule for people with emotional/personality/mental disorders? Just out of curiosity. Are they given the same judgement?
From observation a lot of people who suffer mental disorders may not have fully come to the knowledge of good and evil. People like Down Syndrome sufferers seem to be childlike in understanding. There is scripture that states that to whom much is given much will be required. Taking this as a guide it would seem that to whom little is given little will be required. And if nothing is given well?
Think back to what I have said about those who have never received the Message of Jesus in their lives. I stated that they would not be condemned, this follows on the same principle. They will be given an opportunity after death I believe. Also the scriptures about degenerate minds is not talking about people with mental problems like Down Syndrome it is talking about a morally degenerate minds i believe.
[QUOTE]Adstar:
i would see to have the person arrested by the authorities. There is no need for me to kill the offender.
Milkmoon:
Yet there are many, many cases of offenders going to jail for committing these sort of crimes then being released a few years later only to do the same thing over again, and maybe even worse.
And this is the fault of the system correct? This is an entirely different subject with no real bearing on questions about God.
I will say I do not believe in the punishment based legal system of man. I would prefer to see a system that removed people from society for as long as they where assessed to be a threat to society or incapable of functioning in society with self-control. That would mean no fixed sentences for crimes. A person would be incarcerated until such time as the system deemed them reformed and capable of existing in society in a peaceful manner. So two people could go into such a system for the same crime, one could be out in 6 months while the other could spend the rest of their lives in the system.
Anyway that’s got nothing to do with the topic of God.
[QUOTE]
Adstar:
You cannot say God has never prevented incidences of child molestation.
Milkmoon:
I doubt it was God that prevented these incidents from happening when they were. It could very well be coincidence. How many innocent (and for the sake of argument) Christian children have had horrors done to them, no matter how pious they or their parents were? And let's say that the times where these incidents were prevented were not coincidence, but were actually God intervening. Why does he help some and not others? They are children, they should all be deserving of protection.
I do not know why He intervenes in one case and not in all. So I cannot answer that. I guess in most cases He does not. We live in a world of sin and suffering, I am glad when God intervenes sometimes. Better some intervention than nothing. This is another area where my trust in God is needed. I cannot answer all questions because I have not been given all the answers.
[QUOTE]Adstar:
i can say i believe i would be willing to forgive the ones that abused them.
Milkmoon:
Perhaps you would be willing to, but would you actually forgive them? And most importantly, would the victims of such abuse be willing or even able to forgive them for destroying their lives?
Well the test would come when it came wouldn’t it. But if i failed, it would be my wrong, my failure to forgive. Each person has to face the crunch when it comes. But I do know people who have forgiven terrible wrongs.
Looking at the rest of your points I see a lot of restating the same arguments that we have already gone over. I am not one to running around in circles. If I see anything new from you, I will endeavour to reply.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
My Theory On God: Narcissism (And Why Evil Exists)
I think there are a couple of things you've missed in your article. You say that the Angel's don't have a choice but Satan was an archangel who chose to rebel against God and was thrown down from heaven with a third of heaven's angels who followed him. Also if only good people went to heaven noone would go because none of us are good. None of us were born when Adam sinned. We were still in his body so we all sinned. We are born in a state of sin so whether we are 'good' in human terms or not we are still all sinners. It's like our inheritance in Adam.
-
AnunnakiElder
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 3:38 pm
My Theory On God: Narcissism (And Why Evil Exists)
There's no such thing as good and evil. It's a polar illusion put on mankind to control them and drain their energy. Good and evil exist because the person seeing it puts a label on it. If I were the only person on earth and cut my arm open to look inside, it wouldn't be evil. If I did it in a church it'd be evil.
My Theory On God: Narcissism (And Why Evil Exists)
I don't understand why you've posted an article about why evil exists if you don't believe in evil anyway. If you were hte only person on earth and you cut your arm open, you'd be harming yourself. That's evil.