Mak Searches for God...

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]
IrishSteel wrote:
Short answer - yes

Long answer:

The one incidence in question was God’s command to kill all of the Amalekites - a command that was disobeyed and never carried out.

i won’t go into the history of the Amalekites, but I will remind everyone that there is a principle in Bible interpretation that states all scripture must be interpreted with other scripture - you can’t hold out one passage and say - see this is bad.

lemme splain - we all know that God is portrayed as a loving God seeking all that will to come to repentance, we also know that he commanded Abraham to kill his son - but provided a way out of that command - the purpose being to prove Abraham’s character and faith.

The same can be applied here - in any battle the women and children are carted off, away from the battle. God commanded them to destroy the Amalekites, knowing Saul would disobey. As soon as they had defeated the army, the Israelites fell to looting the spoils of the Amalekites - they obviously did not destroy them all, because the Amalekites continued to be a problem for Israel.

It is also important to note that Israel was commanded to offer peace to all enemies before the battle was engaged - there were some details here that skip my mind at the moment.

with all of that said- had Sail been the man he was supposed to be, God would have provided a way to prevent the slaughter of innocent lives (lives that were not slaughtered in the actual event anyway).

So - God (being omniscient) knew Saul wold disobey, but had Saul’s character been one that would have obeyed the command - I think the outcome would have been something along the lines of the Amalekites surrendering at the peace request before the battle. - The point is not the Amalekites in this narrative - but Saul’s lack of obedience and faith.[/quote]

Whoa!

First: There is NO scripture anywhere that says God knew he would be disobeyed in this instance.

Second: If God really does have that kind of knowledge, why did he have to send Abraham up the mountain under the pretense of killing his son? God would already have known that Abraham would do it. That makes the whole “test of character” some kind of sick practical joke. So either god is a real dick, or he really ordered a whole sale massacre. It has to be one or the other.

Third: Saul could completely have been the man he was supposed to be. God gave Moses the ability to be a great speaker when he needed it. God “hardened the Pharoah’s heart” so that he would suffer through all the plagues and still chase the Isrealites into the sea. You don’t think he could have given some obedience and faith to Saul?

Fourth: A truly benevolent god would end all battles at the surrender offer. Having a bunch of Jews running around the country side creating orphans and widows doesn’t do anybody any good. It’s a lot of needless suffering.

Next bible question: How do you reconcile the two accounts of creation in genesis? Please pay special attention to the parts where they contradict one another.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html

122

Well dang, leave for a minute and look what happens. Mak is looking for God/religion/faith (whatever) and you guys are debating Christianity?! Why? He’s not even considering it!

123

Good point. Sorry for contributing to the hijack.

Mak- Atheism is the only way to go. It doesn’t require to you explain the unexplainable and chicks totally dig it.

126

I’d have thought, Push, that you’d be able to find a better Shakespearean spokesperson than an airheaded nun who’d rather let her brother get executed for knocking up his fiancee than sleep with the Duke to save his life.

I mean, Isabella? Really?

:stuck_out_tongue:

127

Have you found him yet?

130

[quote]mbm693 wrote:
Good point. Sorry for contributing to the hijack.

Mak- Atheism is the only way to go. It doesn’t require to you explain the unexplainable and chicks totally dig it. [/quote]

I never liked Atheism. I consider myself an apathetic Agnostic.

131

[quote]Growing_Boy wrote:
Have you found him yet?[/quote]

We smoked a blunt the other day. I invited you but you were all “Nah man I gotta get up in these bitches at ma house”. He asked where you were, and I explained it and he was like “Meh, that’s totally understandable”.

132

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Don’t assume every single verse in Genesis is written in exact chronological order. A lot of books other than the Bible do this also.

[/quote]

Best explanation of the resurrection, I’ve seen…

TQB

133

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
No, Jesus did not introduce the concept of original sin either . . . The concept of original sin (that Adam’s sin has condemned all men to hell is not biblically supported. The typical passages in Romans used to establish this doctrine are taken from context - do you want to explore this doctrine further?
[/quote]
No I know this, I think you may have misread. I said that he introduced the concept of hell, is this right?

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
I agree with you - if God is who the Catholics and Protestants (think Catholic lite) say he is - then you have every reason to be scared of a deity that would condemn people to hell for something they had no ability to affect and who did nothing to receive that condemnation . . .

Now - for the discussion of what heaven would be like (you really scared me with that mental picture), we can delve into that, but I think we would be skipping a bunch of important doctrines - including completing the discussion on original sin.

Oh and by the way - scripture intimates that hell does have levels of suffering.[/quote]

Would you be able to develop on “levels of suffering” in hell?

I think the view of heaven is a big one, glad I scared you with that, because the thought of it scares me! Luckily, the possible reality of it doesn’t scare me any more than all the other afterlives postulated by religions.

If you think it important to discuss original sin further, please do!

This is to Mak (and sort of related to our conversation); if I were ever to have a religion, it would be Satanism as espoused by the Church of Satan. It’s an atheistic, materialistic religion that celebrates personal achievements and individuality. Their rules of the earth, satanic statements and satanic sins make a lot of sense to me. To them Satan is a literary and Milton-esque figure, taking from the original Hebrew meaning “adversary”.

134

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Growing_Boy wrote:
Have you found him yet?

We smoked a blunt the other day. I invited you but you were all “Nah man I gotta get up in these bitches at ma house”. He asked where you were, and I explained it and he was like “Meh, that’s totally understandable”.[/quote]

LMAO!

135

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
But that’s just it - I don’t have to reconcile it. I do not believe that Jesus was just a man- you do. If you are right you have nothing to worry about and neither do I. If I am right - I have nothing to worry about, but you do (don’t mean that to sound as crass as it does).

I am not sure what you are asking for here.[/quote]

I was talking about reconciling with your earlier statement, which apparently I misinterpreted to mean that you didn’t think I was going to hell, as long as I was sincere in my pursuit of truth, regardless of whether or not I accept Jesus as my savior.

Sounds like you do believe I’m going to hell, despite my sincere commitment to truth. Just wanted to clarify :slight_smile:

136

[quote]pat wrote:
Well I am not a huge fan of Eastern Philosophy. My problem is one of method not of what it says. The reason is that Eastern philosophy states a conclusion and expects you to figure out if it?s true and why. While that process is well and good, I don?t have time for that shit. I want to know the conclusion and how it was concluded and therefore I can move forward. Eastern philosophy is really slow, because you have to figure out if something is true and then move on. Western philosophy presents an argument, eastern presents a conclusion.

Beyond that, your quest is a noble one. Seeking that which lies beyond is a worthy process for a goal you will likely never achieve, but you will learn a lot in the process. That is what Buddhism gives you. You learn a lot from the process. But Western philosophy can get your further, faster.

What we know is this, there is very little that can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. Really simple math is the most solid form of philosophical thought there is?The conclusions will be and are always the same no matter where you are, how your see it, what parallel universe you may be in, 2+2 will always equal 4.
Since you can prove little beyond the shadow of a doubt you live your day to day life on the faith that today is similar to yesterday in that the way things were yesterday will be the same today.
Science shows correlation and implies causation, but that cannot be proven empirically, no matter how hard you try.
The objects of metaphysics are real and are a direct interaction with the physical. For instance, you can conjure an image of the a chair in your mind, and you could build that exact chair, but the chair will never be the image of the chair?It may look the same, but you cannot sit in your image. The image and the object are different. We know love exists, or at least we think it does, but we cannot prove it in any way, etc?.
I could go on, and on, and on…I love this shit.
[/quote]

Actually no. Goedel’s theorem states that:

Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory.

That is to say that underneath all logical though processes there are essentially arbitrary assumptions. These axioms cannot be proved without making yet more assumptions.

A consistent theme in mathematics and science in the last 100 years is that there are inherent limits to knowledge. Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principal can be thought of as the real world corollary to Goedel’s theorem.

These principles have led me to believe that there is no such thing as absolute truth. Or, if there is one it is impossible for us to access it. Thus the question becomes what do YOU believe?

137

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Read the first few chapters of Henry Morris’ “The Genesis Record”. Borrow it from your local library if you don’t want to buy it. They should be able to get it through an inter-library loan if they don’t have it.

In a nutshell: the Skeptic’s Bible assumes “The first man and woman were created simultaneously.” However the Bible does not say that. Chapter 1 is the synopsis. Chapter 2 is the details.

Don’t assume every single verse in Genesis is written in exact chronological order. A lot of books other than the Bible do this also.

When you get a grip on this you’ll realize what a lame objection this really is.

If someone claims to be a fuckin skeptic then have at least a fuckin brain about literature and history and how and fuckin why it was written the way it was instead of being so fuckin blinded by the supreme ideal of being skeptical that you fuckin can’t figure the little fuckin stuff out without it fuckin being spoon fed to you. Good fuckin grief, people.

[Bows]

Bet that’s the first fuckin Sunday School lesson you’ve ever had with a “fuck” or two in it.
[/quote]

… You’re a fucking idiot.

I hate to tell you, but YOU are assuming the events are not described in chronological order. A literal reading of the passage makes it pretty clear that man and woman were created at the same time in one passage and not in the other. Honestly, if you were reading any other book and you had to assume that things weren’t written in chronological order for it to make sense, would you base your life around it?

Second, you didn’t even address the fact that men and women were created before animals in one passage, and after in the next. I know it’s hard for you to think about more than one thing at a time, but it was in front of you in black and white for fuck’s sake.

Lastly, if you had bothered to read the rest of your precious bible, you would have noticed the following:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/days.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/plants.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/fowl.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/animals.html

I’m linking to them because its easier than typing it all out, but if you were to READ genesis, all these contradictions would be glaringly obvious. AND this isn’t even all the contradictions in genesis. How could you possibly take this book seriously?

138

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Isabella doesn’t do for ya, huh?

So let’s go to the Letter to the Romans Chapter 1. This applies to the creationism thread just as well:[b]

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities his eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools…[/b]
[/quote]

So according to this, there isn’t even a need for a bible, since god is crazy obvious and all. Also, everyone that hasn’t believed in this god is in hell. All the native americans from the 1300’s, the Aztecs, the Vikings… all in hell because this god wasn’t obvious enough to them. THat doesn’t seem a little stupid to you?

Speaking of stupid, lets talk about 1 Corinthians 11:3-6.

3Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head?it is just as though her head were shaved. 6If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head.

That’s right, any woman that prays without her head covered, needs to get bald like it’s her job.

140

[quote]mbm693 wrote:
That’s right, any woman that prays without her head covered, needs to get bald like it’s her job.[/quote]

Good luck on that one. I’ve brought up this and other scriptures about women not speaking in church, having their heads covered, etc. to no avail. These are dismissed as only being “cultural” requirements, although Paul specifically refers to them as commandments. They are no longer considered relevant to today. These same people cherry pick other scriptures like Paul’s injunction against gays, and insist that rather than reflecting the culture of the time, these are somehow different because they reflect the everlasting and unchanging word of God.