Calling out Jorge Borges

Originally posted by TheSkipper
Jorge: Reposted for your convenience.

Is it possible to sin so big and so often that you are no longer eligible to become saved? It seems to me this is what you are saying happened to the Amalekites...and, inexplicably, their animals...

Can modern day people sin so much and so big that even if they say the magic words (or whatever the fashionable ...[text shortened]... to become a Christian) God will simply reject them on account of their past deeds being so bad?

Is it possible to sin so big and so often that you are no longer eligible to become saved? It seems to me this is what you are saying happened to the Amalekites...and, inexplicably, their animals...

The Bible says that no sin is unforgivable except the sin against the Holy Spirit; which is, essentially, the sin of declaring what is good to be evil, and what is evil to be good. And the reason it is unforgivable is because a person consecrated to that way of thinking and living will be unable to come to repentance.

God exercised judgment on the Amalekites, and He has the right to do so. He chose to use the Israelites as the vehicle of that judgment, which is also His right.

Can modern day people sin so much and so big that even if they say the magic words (or whatever the fashionable thing to do is these days to become a Christian) God will simply reject them on account of their past deeds being so bad?

I don't know that there are any magic words that one can say in order to be saved. Perhaps one idea may be more fashionable among Christians than others, but I don't believe Truth itself is amendable.

'Savedness' is a matter of the will. Either I choose to believe in the propitiative effect of Christ's sacrifice as it pertains to me, or I choose not to believe. If I choose to believe, though it be an imperfect belief initially, the Lord nevertheless takes this to be sufficient for salvation. Why? Because I am saved not according to merit, but according to His inviolable promise, and henceforth it is a fact which I can reckon back to by exercising faith.

If a person simply wills to believe, then it does not matter what past sins they may have committed, because the Lord is faithful. If I am to live the full life which God desires for me (and which I desire), having victory over habitual sin and experiencing the life hid in Christ, then I must consecrate myself wholly to Him. Success in the Christian walk is determined by how much trust I dare to place in God. God does the rest.

Therefore, as long as a person does not utterly rule out faith in Jesus Christ, he or she is still able to be saved. Where there's a will, there's a way. Where no will exists, it does not matter that there is a way.

Originally posted by Jorge Borges
This is interesting:

"In the Old Testament, God required the Hebrews to drive the wicked Canaanites from His promised land. Canaanite culture was saturated with infant sacrifice, ritual murder, sexual perversion, idolatry and occultism. God knew that a policy of zero tolerance toward Canaanite evil was the only way Hebrew monotheism would survive. On ven [teaching] of the Pharisees.”

http://www.truthtellers.org/alerts/talmudscalpel.html

"Unfortunately, the racist revolution of the Pharisees became embodied in the Babylonian Talmud, the vast, rambling compendium of Pharisaic law. Today the Talmud and its mystical companion, the Zohar or Cabala, are the greatest spiritual, ethical, and legal guides for observant Jews. They are of much greater authority to such Jews than the Old Testament...

This is misleading. The Oral Torah predates Jesus, though it was only written down in the (Babylonian and Jerusalem) Talmuds much later. If one reads the Talmud, one discovers that (1) not all of it is “law”, that is the halachic part (which does predominate), and (2) it is a record of arguments among rabbis (and various midrashic stories); the Oral Torah continues in that argumentative form today. In other words, the Talmud is multi-vocal, not univocal—and should not be so taken. Rabbinical Judaism (whether Orthodox, Hasidic, Reform, Conservative or Reconstructionist) employs a much more open hermeneutics: multiple interpretations are the norm. The Zohar (and other Kabbalistic texts) follow the same hermeneutics.

[Note: Jewish hermeneutics is paradigmatically different from most Christian hermeneutics, and is in part based on the nature of the Hebrew language itself.]

...and jealously guard their secrets from the prying eyes of Gentiles.

This is simply inaccurate. Go to the Judaica section of any good bookstore. You can, if you wish, purchase an entire set of the Talmud in English translation (or an interlinear version) with extensive commentary. You can do the same with the Zohar (e.g., Daniel Matt’s “Pritzker Edition”, with extensive scholarly commentary. You can read the works of rabbis and scholars like Marc Alain-Ouaknin (Orthodox) or Jacob Neusner (Conservative) on the Talmud. I was recently invited to use the entire library of a (Reform) synagogue without restriction or condition. One can attend at least the main Reform seminary in the US without being, or becoming, a Jew (one must, however, learn Hebrew).

These people who speak of guarded secrets and “prying eyes” don’t know what they’re talking about. Perhaps in times past, but not in recent decades, anyway. Anyone who wants to make the effort to learn, can. There are today, for example, no secrets of the Kabbalah hidden from gentile eyes—one can study the works of Gershom Scholem, Daniel Matt, Aryeh Kaplan.

If one wants to really understand Jewish hermeneutics (midrash) and the Talmud, one can do no better, in my mind, than to read (study) Ouaknin’s The Burnt Book: Reading the Talmud—although that is to jump in at the deep end, so to speak, and there are more introductory works available. If one wants to get a good introduction to Kabbalah, one can read (in ascending order of difficulty) Lawrence Kushner’s Honey from the Rock, Daniel Matt’s The Essential Kabbalah and Shimon Shokek’s Kabbalah and the Art of Being. (Note: these are not in the “new age” variety of works on Kabbalah.)

The “secrets” are only “guarded” to those who do want to “pry their eyes”—or their minds—to the task.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Well, you might venture to say this: but are you justified in doing so? I agree that, subjectively, it seems like one has the choice to determine one's attitude in the scenario you describe: but does one really? For example, might it not be the case that people with particular types of brains would be disposed to despair and others to hope? Or that neur ...[text shortened]... t the same time be responsive to the deliverances of reason, to which it must be subordinate.

Why must the will be subordinate to reason? If I have every reason to despair, must I?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Parroting the same thing you said in your first post here doesn't answer my question, which was:

How were the many massacres of infants and children done at God's command in the OT consistent with ANY concept of "free will" resulting in "judgment"?

Focus on the "free will" part. If infants are automatically saved this makes mincemeat out t, God said "I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven.” "

Focus on the "free will" part. If infants are automatically saved this makes mincemeat out of the whole idea that "free will" is sooooooooooooo important to God.

Makes mincemeat how? I'm sorry, but I don't see why God's pardoning of infants has any bearing on free will.

If so, and those zygotes that "die" are automatically saved as well (why wouldn't they be?), then the majority of souls are saved without even getting to any point where they could understand free will, much less exercise it.

Yes, I agree.

2) Then God was wrong. As you pointed out, God said "I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven.” "

I don't pretend to know the beginning from the end. If you want to believe that the God of the Bible is wrong, then go ahead, sir.

Originally posted by Jorge Borges
[b]
God exercised judgment on the Amalekites, and He has the right to do so. He chose to use the Israelites as the vehicle of that judgment, which is also His right.

[/b]I will respond to the remainder of your post soon. However, the quoted text above is why you are ultimately going to fail to convince anyone that genocide at God's hand is acceptable.

You simply assert that God has the right to "excercise His Judgement", which maybe he does, maybe he doesn't...but he does not then get to be called "good". Remember, as you keep saying, we have free will, and we can use that free will to rightly proclaim genocide wrong whether committed by a crazed human or a vengeful God.[/b]

Hoenstly, the God portrayed in the Bible could not tolorate any being that can tolorate genocide.

I mean look at yourself! You are currently in the unenviable position of having to defend genocide! Just stop and think for a minute, use that muscle between your ears for somthing other than a dogma catcher. You have just spent an entire thread defending genocide! Let that sink in for a bit.

Originally posted by rwingett
You are an absolutely repugnant individual. Is any atrocity permissible as long as god supposedly commands it? When you start defending genocide and infanticide as being morally permissible, then it should be apparent that you have no coherent moral code to speak of. At least us secular 'moral relativists' will unconditionally condemn genocide in every circumstance. Your divinely countenanced barbarism is a blot on humanity.

Is any atrocity permissible as long as god supposedly commands it?

If God does command it, yes.

God has the right to exercise judgment, because all people, including children, are guilty before Him (not even a child is as holy and pure as the Lord).

When you start defending genocide and infanticide as being morally permissible, then it should be apparent that you have no coherent moral code to speak of.

I'm not defending genocide itself nor infanticide itself, but the sovereignty of God. Again, God has every right to exercise judgment. We, on the other hand, do not have that right.

At least us secular 'moral relativists' will unconditionally condemn genocide in every circumstance. Your divinely countenanced barbarism is a blot on humanity.

Why is killing children wrong? Aside from your own sense of right and wrong, and the fact that the law of the land says so, can you tell me why killing children is inherently wrong? You affirm that killing children is wrong, but by doing so you are also unconsciously affirming a moral absolute. Do you believe there are moral absolutes? If so, what or who determines them?

Originally posted by TheSkipper
I will respond to the remainder of your post soon. However, the quoted text above is why you are ultimately going to fail to convince anyone that genocide at God's hand is acceptable.

You simply assert that God has the right to "excercise His Judgement", which maybe he does, maybe he doesn't...but he does not then get to be called "good". Remembe ...[text shortened]... her. You have just spent an entire thread defending genocide! Let that sink in for a bit.[/b]

You simply assert that God has the right to "excercise His Judgement", which maybe he does, maybe he doesn't...but he does not then get to be called "good".

God's goodness is not subjectively determined. If we take God's command to destroy the Amalekites out of context, setting aside God's just condemnation of the wicked, disregarding the necessity of preserving the Messianic line, and forget about God's sole purpose of ensuring the salvation of man in Jesus Christ, then of course we will declare God 'monstrous.' But, we will also be misrepresenting the scriptural data.

Hoenstly, the God portrayed in the Bible could not tolorate any being that can tolorate genocide.

Then how about those whom God commanded to perform His will?

I mean look at yourself! You are currently in the unenviable position of having to defend genocide! Just stop and think for a minute, use that muscle between your ears for somthing other than a dogma catcher. You have just spent an entire thread defending genocide! Let that sink in for a bit.

Again, I'm not defending genocide, I'm defending the sovereignty of God.

Originally posted by Jorge Borges
[b]You simply assert that God has the right to "excercise His Judgement", which maybe he does, maybe he doesn't...but he does not then get to be called "good".

God's goodness is not subjectively determined. If we take God's command to destroy the Amalekites out of context, setting aside God's just condemnation of the wicked, disregarding the nec it.[/b]

Again, I'm not defending genocide, I'm defending the sovereignty of God.[/b]

You are defending God's soveriegn right to commit genocide, mate; it's a distinction without a difference.

If your god were so great, he would not make you defend genocide..."merciful" or otherwise.

Originally posted by Jorge Borges
[b]Is any atrocity permissible as long as god supposedly commands it?

If God does command it, yes.

God has the right to exercise judgment, because all people, including children, are guilty before Him (not even a child is as holy and pure as the Lord).[/b]

This is why your 'god' is a monster. You said it yourself. It can do whatever it wants and whatever
that is, you are obligated to call 'good.' So, if your 'god' commanded, for example, that all proponents
of homosexual marriage (that is making that which is 'evil' into 'good,' a sin against the Holy Spirit
by your definition) be slaughtered with their children, their houses burned, and property destroyed,
you would call this a 'good thing' by the simple fact that your 'god' commanded it.

My God, by contrast, commands that love is the highest good, that forgiveness in the face of the
unforgivable is a primary command, and that losing one's life upholding compassion is the
highest honor, and expression of the greatest glorification of the Most Perfect Love that is God.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
This is why your 'god' is a monster. You said it yourself. It can do whatever it wants and whatever
that is, you are obligated to call 'good.' So, if your 'god' commanded, for example, that all proponents
of homosexual marriage (that is making that which is 'evil' into 'good,' a sin against the Holy Spirit
by your definition) be slaughtered with their ...[text shortened]... of the greatest glorification of the Most Perfect Love that is God.

Nemesio

Once again, you say in one post what I can't in ten.

Rec'd

Originally posted by Jorge Borges
Focus on the "free will" part. If infants are automatically saved this makes mincemeat out of the whole idea that "free will" is sooooooooooooo important to God.[/b]

Makes mincemeat how? I'm sorry, but I don't see why God's pardoning of infants has any bearing on free will.

If so, and those zygotes that "die" are automatically saved as well nd. If you want to believe that the God of the Bible is wrong, then go ahead, sir.

1) Then you are stupid;

2) Then putting "free will" at the center of your theology is stupid;

3) I will try to explain this ONE MORE TIME to you;

A) God said "I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven";

B) The memory of Amalek has not been utterly blotted out (we're talking about it now), SO:

C) God was mistaken.

If you wish, you can try and reconcile A and B. It might be good for a laugh.

Originally posted by TheSkipper
You are defending God's soveriegn right to commit genocide, mate; it's a distinction without a difference.

If your god were so great, he would not make you defend genocide..."merciful" or otherwise.

You are defending God's soveriegn right to commit genocide, mate; it's a distinction without a difference.

I disagree.

If your god were so great, he would not make you defend genocide..."merciful" or otherwise.

God doesn't need defending, of course.

Originally posted by Nemesio
This is why your 'god' is a monster. You said it yourself. It can do whatever it wants and whatever
that is, you are obligated to call 'good.' So, if your 'god' commanded, for example, that all proponents
of homosexual marriage (that is making that which is 'evil' into 'good,' a sin against the Holy Spirit
by your definition) be slaughtered with their ...[text shortened]... of the greatest glorification of the Most Perfect Love that is God.

Nemesio

The god which you speak of here, frankly, doesn't exist, i.e., a loving god who does not judge the wicked.

Originally posted by Jorge Borges
The god which you speak of here, frankly, doesn't exist, i.e., a loving god who does not judge the wicked.

That's because you follow Bizarro-God. He's easy to spot. He shows love by inflicting suffering and death on the 'wicked'. He shows compassion by making their hell sentence eternal. He shows justice by giving all people the same punishment, regardless of the severity of their offense. In short, most words used to describe him are twisted until they reach nearly the opposite meaning.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
That's because you follow Bizarro-God. He's easy to spot. He shows love by inflicting suffering and death on the 'wicked'. He shows compassion by making their hell sentence eternal. He shows justice by giving all people the same punishment, regardless of the severity of their offense. In short, most words used to describe him are twisted until they reach nearly the opposite meaning.

He shows love by inflicting suffering and death on the 'wicked'.

Rather, He shows love by offering a free gift of grace in Jesus Christ, so that people can escape the suffering and death which they brought upon themselves.

He shows compassion by making their hell sentence eternal.

Rather, people choose an eternity in hell by rejecting His compassion.

He shows justice by giving all people the same punishment, regardless of the severity of their offense.

There is only one offense: rejecting God's lordship.

In short, most words used to describe him are twisted until they reach nearly the opposite meaning.

My point exactly. And your post is a perfect example of this. When folks disregard the scriptural data, a misrepresentation is always the result.