Heresies

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dokimas
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
i am waiting for the answers to my first questions.

who ordered the murders of infants? God did? how? please explain to me what in the world are you talking about?
*This is what the LORD says: 'About midnight I will go throughout Egypt. Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the slave girl, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well. There will be loud wailing throughout Egypt—worse than there has ever been or ever will be again. ”
— Exodus 11:4–6 *

So what’s your game here exactly – will you seriously try to say this passage doesn’t clearly implicate god in the act of killing these children? :rolleyes:
 
*This is what the LORD says: 'About midnight I will go throughout Egypt. Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the slave girl, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well. There will be loud wailing throughout Egypt—worse than there has ever been or ever will be again. ”
— Exodus 11:4–6 *

So what’s your game here exactly – will you seriously try to say this passage doesn’t clearly implicate god in the act of killing these children? :rolleyes:
do you understand what was going on at the time? do you have an understanding of why this was spoken By our Lord? do you know the history here?
 
do you understand what was going on at the time? do you have an understanding of why this was spoken By our Lord? do you know the history here?
So now that I’ve “answered your first question” … according to the bible god indeed murdered thousands of young children and infants, I guess you’re still avoiding my question (do you think it was righteous to murder innocent infants and young children), but you’ve also sort of answered it by inference.

I assume you do think it’s OK to murder thousands of innocent infants and young children to compel the actions of a single political leader, since you’re now asking me questions pertaining to the context this event allegedly occurred in (which infers you believe there’s justification in the context). I’m curious, if you think it’s OK to slaughter droves of babies and young children to bend the will of a stubborn political leader, I wonder under what other circumstances you would find such behavior acceptable?

Does it occur to anyone that if we have such a warped view of god, it might make us more predisposed to warped behavior?
 
So now that I’ve “answered your first question” … according to the bible god indeed murdered thousands of young children and infants, I guess you’re still avoiding my question (do you think it was righteous to murder innocent infants and young children), but you’ve also sort of answered it by inference.

I assume you do think it’s OK to murder thousands of innocent infants and young children to compel the actions of a single political leader, since you’re now asking me questions pertaining to the context this event allegedly occurred in (which infers you believe there’s justification in the context). I’m curious, if you think it’s OK to slaughter droves of babies and young children to bend the will of a stubborn political leader, I wonder under what other circumstances you would find such behavior acceptable?

Does it occur to anyone that if we have such a warped view of god, it might make us more predisposed to warped behavior?
you keeping avoiding my questions and do not answer. instead you come up with conclusions which was not intended.

why dont you just try to answer the questions? stop playing games.

do you know the history at the time? what do you know about God?
 
So now that I’ve “answered your first question” … according to the bible god indeed murdered thousands of young children and infants, I guess you’re still avoiding my question (do you think it was righteous to murder innocent infants and young children), but you’ve also sort of answered it by inference.

I assume you do think it’s OK to murder thousands of innocent infants and young children to compel the actions of a single political leader, since you’re now asking me questions pertaining to the context this event allegedly occurred in (which infers you believe there’s justification in the context). I’m curious, if you think it’s OK to slaughter droves of babies and young children to bend the will of a stubborn political leader, I wonder under what other circumstances you would find such behavior acceptable?

Does it occur to anyone that if we have such a warped view of god, it might make us more predisposed to warped behavior?
It is impossible for God to murder anyone. He created them and so they are His to do with as He desires. He desires all men to be saved. Taking them as infants was perhaps a merciful thing to do since perhaps they would not have chosen to serve Him and thereby would have deserved hell and gotten hell for eternity.

Romans 9:20-26
But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
25 As He says also in Hosea:
Code:
  “ I will call them My people, who were not My people,
  And her beloved, who was not beloved.”
   26 “ And it shall come to pass in the place where it was said to them,
  ‘ You are not My people,’
  There they shall be called sons of the living God.”
It really is none of our business what God decides to do with His own creation. We can be assured that He is both merciful and just. (paradox)

Luke 6:36
Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful.

Deuteronomy 32:4
He is the Rock, His work is perfect;
For all His ways are justice,
A God of truth and without injustice;
Righteous and upright is He.

He gives life. He takes away life. He is God. This is His job.

Isaiah 55:8-9
For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,” says the LORD. 9 “ For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts.
 
It is impossible for God to murder anyone. He created them and so they are His to do with as He desires.
That’s not an answer, nor does it remotely qualify as a sufficient justification (unless you’re trying to explain this paradox to a child).

You might as well just say god is whatever we say he is, which is really whatever we feel like, shut up and like it :rolleyes:
 
That’s not an answer, nor does it remotely qualify as a sufficient justification (unless you’re trying to explain this paradox to a child).

You might as well just say god is whatever we say he is, which is really whatever we feel like, shut up and like it :rolleyes:
God is who He says He is.

His perfect justice is perfectly balanced by His perfect mercy.

By reading His Word, persons can learn who He says He is. 🙂

What matters to me is that I believe who He says He is and that I also obey Him as proof of my belief since after I leave this earth I desire to inherit eternal life in order to live with Him forever!
 
What matters to me is that I believe who He says He is
That’s the point isn’t it? I don’t believe you’re bible represents an accurate depiction of how god describes himself. If I did I would obviously believe it 🤷
 
That’s really it isn’t it? At the end of it all you have to either accept a very inadequate explanation, or not.
Sometimes, it is called faith for a reason you know. It isn’t called having fact after all. Not saying all that is in the Bible isn’t true. I am just saying that some things require faith. I am not bashing you, or putting you down when I say this, but it’s obvious you have none. faith

I was there once to, I hope you gain some faith some time in your life.

Without faith, your position is 100% right. With faith, it is not.
 
That’s the point isn’t it? I don’t believe you’re bible represents an accurate depiction of how god describes himself. If I did I would obviously believe it 🤷
If you don’t believe the Bible represents an accurate depiction of how God describes himself you must have something to compare that you believe does give an accurate depiction, otherwise your statement makes no sense; you have no basis from which to draw that conclusion. Does your comparison just exist in your own imagination or do you have another source?
 
Excellent points! Although I’m not sure I’m exactly an atheist (at least most atheists would probably call me agnostic). I don’t try to come up with far fetched explanations to demystify some of the compelling facts that exist out there, which might support the idea of (for instance) a human soul (which would infer the existence of some sort of consicious spiritual element, call it god). I simply view the claims made by religion as untrue.:
And you have freedom to think that.

Have you ever read C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity?
I’m not saying it will convince you, but as a lawyer, you might be interested in Lewis’ trilemma, his argument to prove that Jesus was, in fact, God.
The premises are as follows.
Code:
(P): Jesus claimed to be God.
Code:
(Q): One of the following must be true.
**
1. Lunatic: Jesus was not God, but believed that he was.
2. Liar: Jesus did not believe he was God, but spoke as if he did.
3. Lord: Jesus is God.**
From these premises, it is argued, it follows that,
Code:
(C): If not God, Jesus is not great and not moral.
I’m not saying that it will convince you, but you might try thinking outside of the box.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_Christianity
 
And you have freedom to think that.

Have you ever read C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity?
I’m not saying it will convince you, but as a lawyer, you might be interested in Lewis’ trilemma, his argument to prove that Jesus was, in fact, God.

I’m not saying that it will convince you, but you might try thinking outside of the box.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_Christianity
CS Lewis was an atheist. An atheist friend of his said that the the resurrection of Jesus was surprisingly well documented. Lewis looked into it, came to the conclusion that Jesus was the Way, the Truth and the Life and against his feelings Lewis became a Christian. It was the only intellectually honest thing for him to do as he points out in ‘Mere Christianity’.
 
And you have freedom to think that.

Have you ever read C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity?
I’m not saying it will convince you, but as a lawyer, you might be interested in Lewis’ trilemma, his argument to prove that Jesus was, in fact, God.

I’m not saying that it will convince you, but you might try thinking outside of the box.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_Christianity
I was a Presbyterian at one time; and yes I actually have read Mere Christianity (it’s still on my bookshelf in fact). Frankly, looking back at the apologetics of Lewis, I think his arguments were simplistic and suffice it to say (in my view) inadquate.
 
CS Lewis was an atheist. An atheist friend of his said that the the resurrection of Jesus was surprisingly well documented. Lewis looked into it, came to the conclusion that Jesus was the Way, the Truth and the Life and against his feelings Lewis became a Christian. It was the only intellectually honest thing for him to do as he points out in ‘Mere Christianity’.
I simply disagree. I think the idea of a resurrection is reductio ad absurdum.
 
I was a Presbyterian at one time; and yes I actually have read Mere Christianity (it’s still on my bookshelf in fact). Frankly, looking back at the apologetics of Lewis, I think his arguments were simplistic and suffice it to say (in my view) inadquate.
You make these statements but provide no alternative. I think your argument is simplistic and inadequate.
 
I simply disagree. I think the idea of a resurrection is reductio ad absurdum.
Why? What is so absurd about it? Look at the odds of this planet sustaining life, let alone intelligent life. The odds that the earth’s air allows us to breath, the sun doesn’t burn us or freeze us, That we have other animals that are edible, that trees give us oxygen, that we talk, laugh, smile, etc, etc, etc, etc. Not believing God created it all is what I find truly a logically absurd consequence.
 
You make these statements but provide no alternative. I think your argument is simplistic and inadequate.
So you’re saying either I’m obligated to fill in every gap in knowledge, unknown to even the worlds greatest scientists, or I must believe in an ancient story of a god-man who was born of a virgin impregnated by a spirit who knowingly offered himself up in a vicarious ritualistic blood sacrifice to atone for the sins of billions of future people (and if I just believe in that fantastic story my slate will wiped clean, any poor behavior excused, and I’ll get to live on happily ever after in a magical paradise, while all who don’t believe this story will roast in an eternal hell, or something like that)?

There’s a reason why my screen-name is bridgeforsale 🙂
 
Why? What is so absurd about it? Look at the odds of this planet sustaining life, let alone intelligent life. The odds that the earth’s air allows us to breath, the sun doesn’t burn us or freeze us, That we have other animals that are edible, that trees give us oxygen, that we talk, laugh, smile, etc, etc, etc, etc. Not believing God created it all is what I find truly a logically absurd consequence.
There’s even more remarkable facts to make your case better. How about this one. Do you know why it’s not always daylight? Since we live in a universe surrounded by stars, and the universe is about 14 billion years old, and considering the speed of light, our surrounding stars should have inundated earth with constant light; right from the beginning of our planets existence … but it doesn’t?

The reason is the inflation of the universe … e.g. our universe is expanding faster than the speed of light.

But the thing is you can tie up all these remarkable facts into a nice bundle and create a compelling case. However, you have to wonder whether night is really required for life. Sure, we need a sleep cycle, and night facilitates it. But life could survive if it were always daylight (and I would think we would have been acclemated to it by natural selection).

As for the other stuff, yes the earth is fine tuned for life. You would have to say the chances of something like earth existing must be something like one in a trillion, or one in several trillion. But, in fact, if you look around the universe there’s upwards of 500 billion galaxies, and who can imagine how many planets and stars within those galaxies. It stands to reason maybe we’re the one in a trillion because in fact we’re the one in a trillion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top