Originally posted by FabianFnasThis could simply mean that Dawkins is incorrect that God is "petty". Lightening does not strike you every time you say something offensive.
God must really like me for my critical words about him. He hasn't punished me yet. He never will. And you know why.
This is too Great of the Person to be fidgity and fastidious. So you may be mistaking the longsuffering of a very Great Person to be an indication that there will never be any accounting.
In Isaiah we have God telling us:
"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, And your ways are not My ways, declares Jehovah.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so My ways are higher than your ways, and My thoughts [higher] than your thoughts." (Isa. 55:8,9)
Consider the possiblity that this Person is not fastidiously waiting every second to pounce on you. Leave some room for the possibility of a great patience, a very great long suffering Being giving you liberty to think, to consider, to act, to decide wisely.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBut in
oh Agers, great learning is also driving you mad! Zhalansis action of superseding the morality of God is completely independent of any interpretation that i may hold, thus your attempt to make it a my god (my interpretation), verses your interpretation (Zhalanzis God) becomes null and void. Why? Simply because my evaluation is not based on my inte ...[text shortened]... s scot free and crowing upon the thread as a cockerel does upon a fence post in the morning sun!
You both have differing interpretations of the Bible; Zahlanzi sees it as an ancient text, representative of some true "God" but not penned by this entity and so prone to the errors and bias of ancient people that did write it. Whilst you on the other hand see the Bible as being something that was transcribed verbatim from the word of "God".
The assertion that there exist lies in the Bible does not put God_{Zahlanzi} in any jeapordy since it is supposed the Bible is prone to the errors and bias of ancient people that wrote it, and so this supposition does not supercede the morality of God_{Zahlanzi}, which from Zahlanzi's persepctive, is "God".
As such you have merely commited the error I asked you to avoid by assuming your own biased notion of what is true to establish that a god complementing your own bias must be true. 😵
A fine example of circular reasoning, I'll grant you that! But alas, circular reasoning just doesn't cut it. :]
4.) Control freak - Dawkins says the God of the Old Testament is a control freak.
Well when God created man in the first place, how many commands and instructions did God give to control His creation? Not much.
I didn't see instructions on how to worship. Adam was not commanded how low to bow, when to pray, what to sing, where to walk, how to love his wife, how to talk, etc. Essentially I read that God told man to multiply and fill the earth and to be careful not to eat of a certain forbidden tree.
Did you read about God commanding him a whole lot of things ? I didn't. Seems like there was condiderable lattitude to do whatever he wanted, save one thing. And that was to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Control freak ? Rather than 1,000 commandments, I only see one warning. That is to not eat something.
And God's "delegation" seems to be far more important to Him then control. Why else would God create man and give man dominion over His entire creation:
"And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion ..."
Rather than control, I see God delagating authority and dominion to man over this and over that and over everything that is in the earth.
'LET THEM HAVE DOMINION ..." (Gen. 2:26)
But our biologist professor assures us that this God delegating dominion over all the works of His creation to man, is too controling. Man is delegated as God's deputy authority over the creation. And man is ONLY told to multiply, fill the earth, and not to eat from a certain tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
But let me be fair to Mr. Dawkins. AFTER sin comes into the human race, long after, God gives the Law of Moses. And there are quite a few commandments beside the ten.
Perhaps here is where the case for control appears for Mr. Dawkins. Well here is how I understand the matter. Very little control was there while the man was in a neutral and innocent state. Once he moved out of that and into the camp of the opposition party in rebellion to God, God had to show man that man was no longer able to live unto God in a proper way.
Of course man thinks he is alright. He has only fallen a little out of favor with God. This can be taken care of quickly and easily. Right? No problem. NOT.
God say in essence "Oh, you think you can easily fix things up between us with no problem ? Okay, HERE, keep this law. "
The coming in of the law of God was to expose the extent to which man was damaged. He cannot control his sinful nature. He cannot fully do what he knows is good to do. He cannot fully resist the evil he knows he should not do.
God says in essence "The relationship which you and I had has been damaged by your choice. You can damage the relationship. But you cannot fix it. I have to now fix it."
Man has the power to destroy the mutual relationship between himself and God. Man does not have the power to repair what he has destroyed. Once the relationship has been destroyed, God has to come in and restore what has been damaged.
Man thinks he can do that restoral job with little problem. God knows he cannot. God has to give a controling LAW to prove to man himself that he cannot.
So, Mr. Dawkins may have some ground if he means that the LAW of God was very very controling. I agree somewhat. But this was to expose that man has been infested with a principle that is rebellious to the core of his being. The law of God brings to light to man what God knew from eternity.
Having rebelled against his Creator, man's Creator has to come in to put things back right. God has to restore. God has to redeem. God has to save.
So I may grant to Mr. Dawkins that Exodus and Leviticus show a law meant to control many many things about man's living. But this was given to bring man to know his need for God's salvation.
" For the law was given through Moses; grace and reality came through Jesus Christ." (John 1:17)
"There is now then no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has freed me in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and of death.
For that which the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending His own Son in the likeness of the flesh of sin and concerning sin, condemned sin in the flesh.
That the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but accorfin to the spirit." (Rom. 8:1-4)
In the sphere and the realm of the resurrected Christ, the believer is under no condemnation. Grace and reality come with the coming of this Person. We learn to walk by the spirit mingled with the Spirit of Christ.
Originally posted by jaywillI've challenged him before, and nothing of the extraordinary has happened to me. He doesn't listen, or he doesn't exist.
This could simply mean that Dawkins is incorrect that God is "petty". Lightening does not strike you every time you say something offensive.
This is too Great of the Person to be fidgity and fastidious. So you may be mistaking the longsuffering of a very Great Person to be an indication that there will never be any accounting.
In Isaiah we have God ...[text shortened]... eat long suffering Being giving you liberty to think, to consider, to act, to decide wisely.
Originally posted by robbie carrobiewell, from my view, a god that kills people randomly is shaite-coated. or whatever disgusting thing you can think of, he is coated in that.
Zhalanzi is condemned by his own words, he has created his own convenience store sugar coated God, that is self evident and no amount of metaphorical posturing can negate that reality. Let it stand as a warning to all those who would supersede the majesty of the Most High!
Originally posted by Agergyes but it is based on an assumption, not demonstrated, nor substantiated with reason and completely independent from any interpretations that i may have. The Biblical record in the case of Jericho is supported by archaeological evidence, and we have no basis for stating that it was not destroyed other than Zhalanzis insistence that he make his own fairy cake sugar coated bubble gum chewing politically correct secularist liberalist type of God that you can buy at any religious convenience store!
But in
You both have differing interpretations of the Bible; Zahlanzi sees it as an ancient text, representative of some true "God" but not penned by this entity and so prone to the errors and bias of ancient people that did write it. Whilst you on the other hand see the Bible as being something that was transcribed verbatim from the word of "God".
...[text shortened]... ar reasoning, I'll grant you that! But alas, circular reasoning just doesn't cut it. :]
Originally posted by ZahlanziZhalanzi you may coat your Gods in whatever substance you like, it matters not, you have, in this instance made a God for yourself, a sugar coated, fairy cake, bubble gum eating, politically correct, secular liberalist type of God that you have purchased at a religious convenience store! I of course do not blame you, it was done not on the basis of reason, but of sentiment, which demonstrates that you are at least human after all, despite my reservations.
well, from my view, a god that kills people randomly is shaite-coated. or whatever disgusting thing you can think of, he is coated in that.
I have only one real issue with this discussion, please try to refrain from the use of expletives, for in the course of this discussion, we have been subject to a sinister type of cynicism, terms like your Gods a dick, hes a bastard, Jesus is the son of a bastard, your God is shyte covered etc I do not mind personal insults but this type of hatred i could do without.
Originally posted by FabianFnashe doesn't listen to blasphemers and those who call him a bastard and his son the son of a bastard, would you, no i dont think so!
I've challenged him before, and nothing of the extraordinary has happened to me. He doesn't listen, or he doesn't exist.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhere is this evidence you have for saying it was destroyed as the bible says? please cite your sources from somewhere more reliable than, say, www.wesayanythingforthebible.com
yes but it is based on an assumption, not demonstrated, nor substantiated with reason and completely independent from any interpretations that i may have. The Biblical record in the case of Jericho is supported by archaeological evidence, and we have no basis for stating that it was not destroyed other than Zhalanzis insistence that he make his own ...[text shortened]... y correct secularist liberalist type of God that you can buy at any religious convenience store!
His assumption has no less reason or substantiation than you have - that it has little in common with your interpretation is irrelevant; his interpretation might be better!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI have only one real issue with this discussion, please try to refrain from the use of expletives, for in the course of this discussion, we have been subject to a sinister type of cynicism, terms like your Gods a dick, hes a bastard, Jesus is the son of a bastard, your God is shyte covered etc I do not mind personal insults but this type of hatred i could do without.
Zhalanzi you may coat your Gods in whatever substance you like, it matters not, you have, in this instance made a God for yourself, a sugar coated, fairy cake, bubble gum eating, politically correct, secular liberalist type of God that you have purchased at a religious convenience store! I of course do not blame you, it was done not on the basis of ...[text shortened]... is shyte covered etc I do not mind personal insults but this type of hatred i could do without.
Hatred against what!? Noone has established yet that the object with which these appelations are directed is anything other than a construct of the mind. A construct that behaves worse than Hitler - and Hitler really was a dick, so if your god (as an idea in your head) is worse, then...
Originally posted by robbie carrobieeach of those, from their point of view insulted something that doesn't exist.
Zhalanzi you may coat your Gods in whatever substance you like, it matters not, you have, in this instance made a God for yourself, a sugar coated, fairy cake, bubble gum eating, politically correct, secular liberalist type of God that you have purchased at a religious convenience store! I of course do not blame you, it was done not on the basis of ...[text shortened]... is shyte covered etc I do not mind personal insults but this type of hatred i could do without.
i am a religious man and i can say, "robbie, your god is a jerk!" because i believe he isn't real so no real danger of smiting AND he really is a jerk. i have said why. one cannot be the god of love and do all of those things in the old testament. what is more sad is that you cannot bring yourself to see that. christianity doesn't need the old testament to be 100% real.
yes, in some instance jesus appears to accept the story of adam and eve (even that is open to interpretation). yes, in some instance he appears to say "all the old testament is 100% true". but he does so in 1 or maybe 2 of the 4 gospels. gospels written some 30-40 years after his death by old people who's memory may have been flawed. and there are several other gospels that didn't make the bible: thomas, philip, andrew's, rumors of a judah's and a mary's gospel. there are contradictions between the gospels but not where it matters: jesus is the son of god, they are both cocerned with mankind and want us to live lives in love and compassion.
my god is sugar coated? why shouldn't he be? why can't he be benevolent throughout history? why must he throw some massacres once in a while so you find him worthy and "not for panzies".
"god doesn't ever change" you told me once(or one of your club). why did he then change from "jews are the chosen people, kill all the rest" to "kill any non-jews you are able" to "let's love our enemies and all people can be saved?"
"Zhalanzi[...]you have, in this instance made a God for yourself[...]".
On the contrary, it is you who have made a god for yourself. a god constrained by your weird and criminal idea that a god of love is sugar coated and for panzies, that a real, manly god needs to kill a few people for absolutely no reason in order to feel like a man, for the survivors to feel like real men.
i would very much like the supreme being that created me and can end me at any time to be benevolent, thank you very much.