Arguments Against Christianity: Why God hurts others to punish David? 2 Samuel

[Gorgias]

Right, And when a sentence is constructed conditionally such that “When doing A, you must also do B,” then the thrust of the subject matter is about A. If a sentence says “When changing a flat tire, you must first have your parking break set” you’ll find that in a manual about tire changing not parking breaks. The fact that the passage essentially says when you count people, make sure to get a half shekel from them means its focus is on counting people.

In English? Sure. In Koine Greek? Not so much. Greek had a pretty impressively developed system of conditional statements. The particular grammar of a conditional statement indicated whether the “if” part was thought to be likely to occur, or unlikely, or merely hypothetical. I appreciate that your take on an “if-then” statement is what you’ve claimed here… but the Bible wasn’t written in 21st-century English.

You’re talking about a translation of a translation… Don’t let the definite article throw you off on that one.

I’m talking about the Greek version of the Old Testament which the Jews themselves, including Jesus and his contemporaries, used. If it were an inaccurate translation, would the Jews of 1st century Palestine have utilized it as their Scripture?

Just because I record the temperatures one hour doesn’t mean I won’t do it again another hour. The same thing goes with “taking the sum of the sons of Israel”. Making that count one time doesn’t mean it won’t be done again

Just because you do a task regularly, doesn’t mean that Jews 3000 years ago were planning to do a task regularly.

Anyway, post 27:

Apologetics Press

Post 76:

Common Truth

I also suggested searching online under “david census half shekel” for more articles.

Thanks!

(And yeah… I have researched the ‘half shekel temple tax’. Have you? Did you find anything to suggest that it was regularly and repeatedly tied to a Jewish census? )

 

[Gorgias]

By saying that 2 Samuel 24 is to be read as an occasionalist explanation is to say that it is incorrect.

No – it’s to say that this is the interpretation / understanding of the event in the eyes of the writer.

This causes a problem because each passage of scripture is supposed to be true in one way or another.

No, it doesn’t. The truth of the Bible – in terms of the “literal sense of Scripture” – is what the intent of the inspired writer was, in terms of what he conveyed. Is it unreasonable to suggest that what the writer of 2 Sam 24 and the writer of 1 Chron 21 wished to convey was “David held a census, and it displeased God”? I think not. They might have understood how it came about differently… but the descriptions sync up in what they say happened.

In the Biblical comparison God doing something is the exact opposite of Satan doing something. One of those needs to be brushed aside, not as some alternate truth, but as fiction.

Neither need ‘brushed aside.’ They are merely the writers’ understanding of what brought the event about.

What if there are other passages that are also occasionalist but we’re not so lucky to have a second passage to correct its errors? How would we know?

Oh, they’re out there! And, it’s easy enough to find them. Remind me, next week, to come back to the question, and I’ll quote some for you!

If you’re saying that one passage is partially untrue and the other is true, then we’re fine. If you’re saying both are true, then that’s classic doublethink.

Both are true in terms of the event they describe. They differ only in the writers’ understanding of how they came about.

 

[Gorgias]

It’s an internet forum which means the only winners are the ones that don’t participate!

Love it!

 

[jcrichton]

Hi!

I understand your concern… but it is part of Faith.

Knowing something is not Faith; it is knowing… and while our knowledge is limited and finite, we travel in faith… ever heard of those fanatics that, on faith, make a line at “x” junction in order to get to be one of the “first” people to own the latest tech? They go on faith that life will not end before they achieve that particular goal; they go on faith that a gun fanatic will not meet them and terminate their existence while they await yet another “promise” of the “best” heaven on earth gadget; they go on faith that their extra moneys (usually 20% 30% more expensive than the last gadget) they will cough up will be worth the hype; they go on faith that the gadget (though they already own at least one previous model) is a “must have” and “can’t live without…”

The difference is the investment.

You want an ironclad guaranteed with the Spiritual Faith and you are not willing to invest much more than a passing glance into the possibility of a supernatural existence…

The same science that tells you that the human body is mostly water and that everything is mostly space cannot explain how a rock, once split in have, remains as solid as when it was whole or how the human experience goes way beyond the accumulation of the fluids and other components of its physical body.

As for the angels, if we want to delve into that, the only number that has been Revealed is that each person has a guardian angel–how that works is also part of the Divine Mystery… so we can only speculate as to how and why or why not…

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Hi, Mike!

You are correct; all we do is toss the salad components about. We are not the Master Chef so we can only speculate as to how and why things should have been done and should be.

The point you continue to miss is that man has only the power to take life while God has the power to Give Life; hence, His Way, though not fully clear to us, can be quite exacting to what He wants to Convey.

He is the Ultimate Equalizer; the Lord Giver of Life Who can actually transcend the material and retrieve the physically dead and push them forth into Eternal Life.

The best analogy for this is given by St. Paul when he equates God to the artisan that can Create vessels for simple and complex use out of the same clay. Yet, while the human artisan can only reshape the materials at his disposal, God can actually regenerate Life, even when the temporal vessel has been terminated.

Limiting God to our understanding and abiliti4es is short of understanding God’s Omnipotence and Judgment.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I understand why you very much want to change the subject away from God killing tens of thousands.

The cognitive dissonance is almost tangible in trying to defend such things. It goes against every fiber of what real justice and real mercy are.

Yet, it is your definition of “real” justice and “real” mercy that you are pitting against what is Revealed about God.

You are making a judgment call on God.

You are demanding that God behave as you determine that He should.

You fully ignore that that same God that you charge with the murder of 70,000 people has the power to restore their spiritual Life.

You want to apply human means to the Divine.

In essence you are following the “Puss in the boot” principle (remember how that ended?); God must capitulate to human understanding of justice and mercy in order to satisfy the human intellect and Life itself.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

God’s will is love. By definition. And the boundaries of the law are ultimately not set by Justice. If that were the case you and I would not exist, God justly would have vaporized us long ago because we are sinners. If we look at justice alone as the framework of morality, we get what we deserve, or what we have earned. Which is problematic for almost everyone I shudder to think.

The source and boundary of the law is become love. God’s love breathes the law and God’s love leads us to him, our ultimate good. His love transforms justice and gives it it’s full meaning. It is what defeats death.

This is precisely the problem with human understanding (equating human “rules”/ways to Gods); it is sin that merits death; it is God’s Mercy that holds back the wages of sin, allowing not His Wrath to overtake us.

So it is not that God is not just (Ezekiel 18) but rather that we want God to operate within our own understanding; hence, such examples found in Scriptures are used to fuel the argument of ‘why I don’t believe…’

I’ve heard such arguments being put forth but not out of sincere quest for Truth but as the means to find a reason to reject God.

I sometimes ask the staunch rhetorician, with all the killing done by man, why don’t you get off the planet? My intent is to demonstrate that the argument is more against God than an actual search to truth as man’s behavior is often dismissed (even when it is clearly evil/destructive in a massive scale) while God’s “perceived” intent is fully held as anti mercy/love/justice.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

If all religions stem from man, then no religion is true.

One may hold doubts about a potential existence of a non-physical being, but the religions themselves? Those are just social constructs that offer comfort, control, answers, culture identity, etc…

,the only problem with that is that that is the construct by which that particular person/s determine that they are… so basically the argument is that because they label “all” religions as proceeding (being a construct) from man than no religion is from God, hence God does not exist.

It’s the old chicken and the egg argument.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

…perhaps you are not meant to be healed, have you considered that?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[pocaracas]

pocaracas:

If all religions stem from man, then no religion is true.

One may hold doubts about a potential existence of a non-physical being, but the religions themselves? Those are just social constructs that offer comfort, control, answers, culture identity, etc…

,the only problem with that is that that is the construct by which that particular person/s determine that they are… so basically the argument is that because they label “all” religions as proceeding (being a construct) from man than no religion is from God, hence God does not exist.

It’s the old chicken and the egg argument.

My hypothetical doesn’t rely on it being the opinion of anyone in particular.
It relies on it being the reality of events.

Allow me to make it explicit:
If it is true that all religions stem from man, then no religion is true.

How best to ascertain if a particular religion stems from man or from an actual divine entity?

 

[ethereality]

Fr Larry Richards says to spend time in prayer before the Blessed
Sacrament. That’s his answer to your question…

 

[pocaracas]

Fr Larry Richards says to spend time in prayer before the Blessed
Sacrament. That’s his answer to your question…

LOL.
But one can’t expect much more from someone whose first name was replaced by “Fr”.

 

[jcrichton]

Again, the chicken/egg…

Science says evolution… it does not explain how millions of species came into being (chicken/egg) but it uses the broad brush to presuppose that it is not necessary to identify the source of these millions of different species; all that needs to be done is to believe that they “emerged (dumb, blind, and mute “nature” brought everything into existence).”

Hence your hypothetical. Since God has not come down to see you and prove to you personally that He Revealed Himself to man by the various means that He has, you are determined to believe, ‘there’s no God.’

Here’s my response: ‘yes, for you that works; I’m glad you’ve come to such high terms.’

However, since I’m quite pedestrian, I believe God’s Revelation of God to man as He has made Himself Known.

We both are at an impasse. We both are 100% sure of ourselves. Yet only one of us can be right. I err on the side of God.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[ethereality]

I have considered that, and I don’t understand it: Our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit. Why do we maintain churches, repairing cracked walls, broken windows, doors? If God is content to let his temples be damaged, malformed, crippled, then why should we try to make our churches beautiful? It seems a selfish act to make a church look nice … Perhaps this is indeed the correct conclusion, that God would rather we spend our money caring for the poor living in slums in third-world countries (particularly in evangelism, since it’s not clear what God thinks about their physical suffering), rather than repair or maintain churches in the United States.

 

[pocaracas]

Again, the chicken/egg…

Science says evolution… it does not explain how millions of species came into being (chicken/egg) but it uses the broad brush to presuppose that it is not necessary to identify the source of these millions of different species; all that needs to be done is to believe that they “emerged (dumb, blind, and mute “nature” brought everything into existence).”

Is that what you think the theory of evolution says (and doesn’t explain)?
Interesting…

In case you missed it, you’re wrong. I’d advise a perusal of some encyclopedia, at least… or a biology textbook for something more comprehensive.

Hence your hypothetical. Since God has not come down to see you and prove to you personally that He Revealed Himself to man by the various means that He has, you are determined to believe, ‘there’s no God.’

Again, you’re wrong.
Since I do not believe the tales told by people, written by people concerning any god, I remain unconvinced that any such thing exists.
A supposedly selective revelation only serves to heighten my suspicion - could those people have imagined the thing? Could they have hallucinated it? Could they have dreamt it? Could they have just been flat out lying? All of the above and more psychological shenanigans?

Here’s my response: ‘yes, for you that works; I’m glad you’ve come to such high terms.’

However, since I’m quite pedestrian, I believe God’s Revelation of God to man as He has made Himself Known.

We both are at an impasse. We both are 100% sure of ourselves. Yet only one of us can be right. I err on the side of God.

As I said above, I’m not 100% sure of myself. But I do try to look for natural means that could achieve the same results.

 

[jcrichton]

I cannot disagree with you more… we have Jesus’ Teachings on what needs to be done (the Great Commission) and we have Jesus reply to the Apostles when they agonized about the alabaster perfume that the woman was “squandering” and they concluded that it should have been sold for a great deal of money and used to help the poor… Jesus reminded them that her act was necessary and that they would have the poor with them to aide them and care for them during the Church’s lifetime.

Finally, while God needs nothing, we, humanity, are creatures of needs and habits; a building for gathering and Braking of the Bread is not just superfluous and extravagant; it is part of the culture of Worship… do you remember Who started this whole thing? (Exodus 25 thru 29)

While I do agree with you that the Believers are the Temple of the Living God, I cannot dismiss the need for actual physical buildings for gathering and furthering our Faith.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

In case you missed it, you’re wrong. I’d advise a perusal of some encyclopedia, at least… or a biology textbook for something more comprehensive

Do you see your error?

You are asking me to go on the presumption of “evidence” that does not exist because some “scholars” have put together stories about “evolution” (incidentally, often they ignore that it is still a ‘theory’ not a fact of evolution); while you simultaneously reject God’s Revelation to all (scientists, religious and non-religious alike).

A supposedly selective revelation only serves to heighten my suspicion - could those people have imagined the thing? Could they have hallucinated it? Could they have dreamt it? Could they have just been flat out lying? All of the above and more psychological shenanigans?

Anything and everything is possible; what is really perplexing is your ability to absorb the “goldilocks phenomenon” as proof positive of an emergence of life and of chaos bringing forth order while rejecting God as the Omniscient Creator.

I’m not 100% sure of myself. But I do try to look for natural means that could achieve the same results.

I applaud you on your quest!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[ethereality]

You missed my point.

 

[pocaracas]

pocaracas:

In case you missed it, you’re wrong. I’d advise a perusal of some encyclopedia, at least… or a biology textbook for something more comprehensive

Do you see your error?

You are asking me to go on the presumption of “evidence” that does not exist because some “scholars” have put together stories about “evolution” (incidentally, often they ignore that it is still a ‘theory’ not a fact of evolution); while you simultaneously reject God’s Revelation to all (scientists, religious and non-religious alike).

Oh… you’re one of those…
BYE!

pocaracas:

A supposedly selective revelation only serves to heighten my suspicion - could those people have imagined the thing? Could they have hallucinated it? Could they have dreamt it? Could they have just been flat out lying? All of the above and more psychological shenanigans?

Anything and everything is possible; what is really perplexing is your ability to absorb the “goldilocks phenomenon” as proof positive of an emergence of life and of chaos bringing forth order while rejecting God as the Omniscient Creator.

Talk about goldilocks!

pocaracas:

I’m not 100% sure of myself. But I do try to look for natural means that could achieve the same results.

I applaud you on your quest!

Thank you.

 

[ethereality]

aaaand I’m unsubscribed from this thread. Y’all need to quit bickering!