It desires to have you

Originally posted by KellyJay
Hardly, God has been moving towards an end, that end is Jesus Christ becoming one of
us so we could know God by seeing Jesus. You again, have some made up god between
your ears, so now when confronted with the real thing you don't know how to wrap your
mind around it. You are just like those that said Jesus was a sinner, because they had
God in box, the ...[text shortened]... accused Him of sin. NOT grasping it was they who couldn't see what was right
in front of them.

I recommend sitting down with both the Old and New testament and comparing the God's portrayed within.

Chalk and cheese sir.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
I recommend sitting down with both the Old and New testament and comparing the God's portrayed within.

Chalk and cheese sir.

I've been studying both for over 30 years now, I don't pick and choose like some here,
those parts I like with those I don't and try to cherry pick what is real and truth by what
pleases me. You since you can make god to be whatever you want Him to be to everyone
else, since you don't believe in Him, you bend and shape Him to your likes and dislikes so
He can one thing in the OT and a different God in the NT.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I've been studying both for over 30 years now, I don't pick and choose like some here,
those parts I like with those I don't and try to cherry pick what is real and truth by what
pleases me. You since you can make god to be whatever you want Him to be to everyone
else, since you don't believe in Him, you bend and shape Him to your likes and dislikes so
He can one thing in the OT and a different God in the NT.

Please explain how chalk can become cheese without changing?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Please explain how chalk can become cheese without changing?

I don't give a rats a$$ about chalk and cheese.
I can tell you that if something does not change, and when you view it you see change,
there is something wrong with you not the unchanging thing.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I don't give a rats a$$ about chalk and cheese.
I can tell you that if something does not change, and when you view it you see change,
there is something wrong with you not the unchanging thing.

I'm off to eat cheese, and plenty of it.

Be well.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
I'm off to eat cheese, and plenty of it.

Be well.

🙂 you too!
I'm off today after a nap, going to see a movie and have lunch out with the wife.
Have a good one!

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
4. God kills 14,000 people for complaining that God keeps killing them.
In Numbers 16:41-49, the Israelites complain that God is killing too many of them. So, God sends a plague that kills 14,000 more of them.


So, you're cool with that?

If you are you saying God as portrayed in the OT is 'evil' I would like you to consider the following:

Assuming God as portrayed in the OT does exist, who ultimately determines 'good' and 'evil'?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If you are you saying God as portrayed in the OT is 'evil' I would like you to consider the following:

Assuming God as portrayed in the OT does exist, who ultimately determines 'good' and 'evil'?

It doesn't matter really, he does not believe in God. So for him he can say there are two
different gods one that people believed in during OT times, and one they believe in during
NT times up to now. His disjointed view of God doesn't even reflect that God's traits are
real, for example being King of the universe not real therefore not important, never
changing not real therefore not important, being the One that holds the whole universe
together by the power of His Word not real therefore not important. It isn't that He thinks
God is evil, he doesn't believe in God so nothing said about God really matters, since he
thinks we are all talking about something we are all making up, just to suit our own
weakness, so its all not real therefore not at all important except as far as we take it.

I do imagine he thinks the events that occurred in scripture did happen, but not at God's
hand or request instead by those that did them and used God to justify their actions. From
that point of view, if he was right about that, he is VERY justified in his views. I do believe
God is real and when creating life or ending it He is just.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If you are you saying God as portrayed in the OT is 'evil' I would like you to consider the following:

Assuming God as portrayed in the OT does exist, who ultimately determines 'good' and 'evil'?

Is a thing good because God says it is good, or does God say it is good because it is good?

Euthyphro's Dilemma

Originally posted by KellyJay
It doesn't matter really, he does not believe in God. So for him he can say there are two
different gods one that people believed in during OT times, and one they believe in during
NT times up to now. His disjointed view of God doesn't even reflect that God's traits are
real, for example being King of the universe not real therefore not important, never ...[text shortened]... ustified in his views. I do believe
God is real and when creating life or ending it He is just.

I asked you simply to compare black with white. Nothing more.

Edit: How was the movie?

Originally posted by JS357
Is a thing good because God says it is good, or does God say it is good because it is good?

Euthyphro's Dilemma

If Ghost is arguing along the lines "God cannot exist because His actions in the OT are evil...."

Here's the problem with that objection. When you say God is 'evil', you assume there's good. When you assume there's good, you assume there's such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. But if you assume a moral law, you must posit a moral Law Giver, but that's Who you're trying to disprove and not prove. Because if there's no moral Law Giver, there's no moral law. If there's no moral law, there's no good. If there's no good, there's no evil.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If Ghost is arguing along the lines "God cannot exist because He comes across as evil...."

Here's the problem with that objection. When you say God is 'evil', you assume there's good. When you assume there's good, you assume there's such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. But if you assume a moral law ...[text shortened]... e's no moral law. If there's no moral law, there's no good. If there's no good, there's no evil.

'The Israelites complain God is killing too many of them. So, God sends a plague that kills 14,000 more of them.'

The simple question was, are you cool with that?

And yes I know, God is all powerful and decides what is good,.....but are you cool with that?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
'The Israelites complain God is killing too many of them. So, God sends a plague that kills 14,000 more of them.'

The simple question was, are you cool with that?

And yes I know, God is all powerful and decides what is good,.....but are you cool with that?

I am cool with God stipulating what is good and what is evil. I am also cool with Him punishing what he deems to be evil as He sees fit.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If Ghost is arguing along the lines "God cannot exist because His actions in the OT are evil...."

Here's the problem with that objection. When you say God is 'evil', you assume there's good. When you assume there's good, you assume there's such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. But if you assume a mo ...[text shortened]... e's no moral law. If there's no moral law, there's no good. If there's no good, there's no evil.

I wasn't arguing ghost's case. I asked "Is a thing good because God says it is good, or does God say it is good because it is good?" What do you think? It seems that you think things being good or evil is up to God to decide.

Originally posted by JS357
I wasn't arguing ghost's case. I asked "Is a thing good because God says it is good, or does God say it is good because it is good?" What do you think? It seems that you think things being good or evil is up to God to decide.

I think that if you say something is evil you have to assume there's good. You also assume there's such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. Also, if you assume a moral law, you must posit a moral Law Giver. If you assume that the God of the Bible does exist, he has to be the Law Giver. So saying He doesn't exist because He is evil is self defeating.