More than a few records of the Bible have the added benefit of tripping up the arrogant. Asking questions is not arrogance; asking questions with the intent to discredit is another issue altogether.
The rewarded intent is one that follows the truth where it leads, regardless of outcome.
Those who go looking for discrepancies/inconsistencies/nonsense will be rewarded, but not nearly as much as those who have the integrity to submit themselves to truth.
Mincing words, splitting hairs, changing categories and classifications are all fun and games. The adept can walk away victorious in minor battle, having engaged inferior scholars/postulators/wordsmiths.
The temporary victors are the eventual vanquished, done in by their own 'intelligence.'
Originally posted by joelekI am curious as to why you call yourself "True Xian," though. Is that supposed to be sarcastic?
Of course, if I don't answer your ridiculous post, you'll think I found it too challenging, but that's OK. You're welcome to your opinions.
I am curious as to why you call yourself "True Xian," though. Is that supposed to be sarcastic?
telerion came up with “True Xtian, TM” (i.e., trademarked) in response to the intra-Christian bickering about what the requirements are to be a “true Christian.” For example—
Person A: Christians believe X about the Bible.
Person B: Wait a minute. I’m a Christian, and I don’t believe X.
Person A: Well, then, you’re not a true Christian…
Actually, this was most often done in third-person: “Well, then, he’s not a true Christian…” Sometimes it was innuendo, and not that straightforward: “Well, I don’t know how they can call themselves Christian…”
BTW, most of the people here who write “Xtian” instead of spelling the word out, do not mean the abbreviation in a pejorative sense (even if they otherwise view Christianity with disdain). Some Christians use the abbreviation (recalling the X from the Greek letter chi)—maybe though, they’re not “true Christians, TM.” 😉
Originally posted by NemesioSo the God who gave us moral guidelines is in no way bound to them?
Originally posted by Halitose
[b]1) God created this whole universe; who are you to say what He may or may not do? He is the giver of life and can just as easily take it away.
So the God who gave us moral guidelines is in no way bound to them?
God can lie, steal, cheat, murder, and fornicate with utter impunity (after all,
He made us, right ...[text shortened]... on and love,
then envisioning a God who can and does murder with impunity is absurd.
Nemesio[/b]
Not in the same way we are.
We were created for a reason, a purpose. The guidelines exist to help us achieve that purpose. Why should God, who does not have our purpose, be bound by our guidelines?
Here's an example. A father tells his two sons not to hit each other. However, when one of the sons commits a wrongful act, the father hits him to correct him. Why isn't the father bound by the same rules he gave his sons?
If God can perform acts which run contrary to His Law, then who is to say that 'His Word' isn't one big lie?
I'm not sure I see the logical connection here.
And, just because authority is granted to someone on earth to take away life doesn't make it moral. After all, Saddam Hussein had power and used it to kill thousands through his army. Certainly you recognize these as murders, despite his authority.
We recognise them as murders precisely because he over-stepped his authority.
Finally, if we embrace the notion that God is everlasting mercy, compassion and love, then envisioning a God who can and does murder with impunity is absurd.
You forgot "justice". And how do you know that, when God chooses to kill, it is not act of mercy, compassion or love? In the example of the father and sons I gave above, the father's chastisement would not appear very merciful or compassionate from the child's perspective. Yet, as adults, we recognise the mercy and compassion in the action. Judging God from our vantage point is similar to the judgment of that child's.
Finally, if death isn't the end of the road for us, how do we judge that the acts of the God of Exodus were objectively evil?
Originally posted by NemesioWith a few theological notes, I'd be happy with that explanation.
I believe that the Jews were loosely imprisoned and had a great
leader in Moses lead them. I think that the Pharaoh was not keen on this, but natural circumstances and the death of his son led him to abandon the idea. The Jews subsequently wrote the stuff down and elaborated on it in order to give justification to how they were able to escape.
It's all midrash to me.
Originally posted by NemesioI wasn't talking about "God-knowledge".
I tend to take a Jewish approach to this question, that the
answer to this question is greater than can be explicated.
Conservative Jews even avoid the term 'theology' because
it means 'God-Knowledge' which they feel boarders on heresy.
So, I feel that it is both impossible and kind of presumptuous
to try to answer this question. More often, it ...[text shortened]... in contrast to the notion that
God is Love which is at the heart of Christian dogma.
Nemesio
I asked you "Who is your God ?"
So, if I understand you correctly, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is not the God you worship.
Therefore again my question: Who is your God ? Who is the God you worship ?
Originally posted by HalitoseNot quite. You either have importance, or you do not. There are no degrees of unimportance, only degrees of importance, due to the fact that unimportance is the lack of importance.
Is the unimportance absolute? If not, it needs a comparison to be understood relatively.
Therefore, your assumption that unimportance can be anything but absolute is logically flawed.
As I said, my statement stands alone.
Originally posted by lucifershammer
Not in the same way we are.
We were created for a reason, a purpose. The guidelines exist to help us achieve that purpose. Why should God, who does not have our purpose, be bound by our guidelines?
Please recall that the statements preceding yours basically indicated
that God simply is unable to commit murder because He has authority
to take away life. That's rather different than guidelines to acheive a
goal.
But, if the guidelines are to 'Be perfect, like the Father in Heaven is
perfect,' as per Jesus's own words, then we can assume that the Father
should be adhering to these guidelines, too.
Here's an example. A father tells his two sons not to hit each other. However, when one of the sons commits a wrongful act, the father hits him to correct him. Why isn't the father bound by the same rules he gave his sons?
Naturally. But this example entails a difference in the act itself.
The action is similar (a striking) but the act is different -- the sons'
hitting of each other is an act of aggression and anger, the father's
hitting is one of punishment or instruction.
Can you explain to me how the killing of the innocent first-born sons
is not murder, but a justified killing? Keep in mind the assumptions
about God include omnipotence and omnibenevolence (or, if these are
not your assumptions, please state it as a matter of clarification).
I'm not sure I see the logical connection here.
That is, people are asserting that if God kills innocents, it isn't
murder because the Laws God gave only apply to humans, not to
Himself. As such, we can assume that the other Laws -- not to lie and
not to steal -- also do not apply if this is their reasoning. It may not
apply to your framework, but we'll see.
We recognise them as murders precisely because he over-stepped his authority.
Right. My comment was in response to the person who asserts that,
simply because the government says 'you have the authority' doesn't
entail that they, in fact, do. I view the person who pulls the switch on
the electric chair as an accomplice to murder, myself.
You forgot "justice". And how do you know that, when God chooses to kill, it is not act of mercy, compassion or love? In the example of the father and sons I gave above, the father's chastisement would not appear very merciful or compassionate from the child's perspective. Yet, as adults, we recognise the mercy and compassion in the action. Judging God from our vantage point is similar to the judgment of that child's.
Absolutely. God is a God of Justice. I see no justice in the murder of
innocents, especially assuming that God is omnipotent. I see no
justice in the systematic torture of Job to test a faith that God already
knew he had.
Finally, if death isn't the end of the road for us, how do we judge that the acts of the God of Exodus were objectively evil?
You see, I do not view the acts described in Exodus as literal acts, just
a Jewish interpretation and interpolated recollection, so the question
is moot. But, I'm not sure what you're getting at? Are you saying that
it's okay for God to smite any single person at any time whatsoever,
simply because He can drag that one up to Heaven as per His will?
That would make God a churlish sort of individual, indeed.
Nemesio