Originally posted by FreakyKBH Maybe that's your problem. According to your thinking, a person can live or do something to gain the approbation of God. This is not biblical by any stretch of the imagination.
Snore... I've said explicitly over and over that a good Christian ought not believe that people can
'earn' entry into heaven. By 'live lives conducive to heaven-entry' I simply mean attend to the
articles of faith consistent with a believer, nothing more.
According to you, some other solution could have been found for the children. Why the children, exactly? Why not rehabilitate all of the rest of the population? Surely an omnipotent God could do so!
He absolutely could. This is why what you believe in is a monstrous idol, not God. The
commanding of the slaughter of infants is particularly monstrous because, unlike adults, the
children have not yet had the opportunity to turn their back on God.
The arrogance required of holding the view that you do is staggering: as though somehow your lofty position of hindsight confers upon you insight otherwise overlooked by God. That is chutzpah!
It would only be arrogance and chutzpah if it demanded concession on the part of God. But
the Bible speaks of forgiveness, clemency, compassion, and mercy. Where was the mercy
for these children (or adults)? No where.
Could not just one child have been adopted by the Jewish slaughterers and taught in
the ways of the Lord? Just one? Your belief requires that had this happened, and evil
would have taken place (for it was disobedient).
Originally posted by FreakyKBH What question did I avoid that hasn't been responded to within these last few posts?
When have I ever not answered a question?
Maybe I threw you by posing as a request not a question, but here is the post:
Originally posted by twhitehead Since on previous occasions when scripture has been quoted as an answer I have then been accused of misinterpreting it due to my not owning the correct decoder ring, please clarify that you are claiming that at that time everyone, including one day old infants were so corrupt that they deserved death.
And the question is:
Are you claiming that at that time everyone, including one day old infants were so corrupt that they deserved death?
Originally posted by twhitehead Maybe I threw you by posing as a request not a question, but here is the post:
Originally posted by twhitehead Since on previous occasions when scripture has been quoted as an answer I have then been accused of misinterpreting it due to my not owning the correct decoder ring, please clarify that you are claiming that at that time everyone, incl ...[text shortened]... t at that time everyone, including one day old infants were so corrupt that they deserved death?
And the question is:
Are you claiming that at that time everyone, including one day old infants were so corrupt that they deserved death? That's akin to Nemesio's "Do you still beat your wife" question. Everyone deserves death. Everyone is born spiritually dead, separated from God--- not on account of any personal sins, but on account of Adam's original sin. Therefore, no infant had become "so corrupt that they deserved death." They, like all of the rest of humanity, were born corrupt prior to any personal sin.
That being said, apparently whatever future was available for the men, women and children of that group of people made the course of action taken the preferred choice.
Originally posted by Nemesio Originally posted by FreakyKBH Maybe that's your problem. According to your thinking, a person can live or do something to gain the approbation of God. This is not biblical by any stretch of the imagination.
Snore... I've said explicitly over and over that a good Christian ought not believe that people can
'earn' entry into heaven. By 'liv ...[text shortened]... en place (for it was disobedient).
This is an impoverished theology, indeed.
Nemesio[/b]
... the
children have not yet had the opportunity to turn their back on God. You make it sound as though simply turning one's back on God is reason enough for Him to take one out of this life. Untrue.
It would only be arrogance and chutzpah if it demanded concession on the part of God. It absolutely demands concession on the part of God. You would have Him compromise His perfect integrity in order to fit your mold of what constitutes mercy.
Where was the mercy for these children (or adults)? No where. Again, you speak of things of which you know nothing. You have absolutely no idea of all the details involved. You assume innocence on the part of infants. You paint a picture of a group of people who just needed a gentle nudge in the right direction. History says otherwise.
This is an impoverished theology, indeed. I'll take that as a compliment coming from you. Study to show yourself approved, a workman who needeth not to be ashamed. Rightly dividing the word of truth.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH You make it sound as though simply turning one's back on God is reason enough for Him to take one out of this life. Untrue.
That's right. Evidently one need not do anything for your 'god' to take a person out of
this life.
It absolutely demands concession on the part of God. You would have Him compromise His perfect integrity in order to fit your mold of what constitutes mercy.
This is why your 'god' is a monster; to not demand the slaughter of infants constitutes
a compromise on its so-called 'perfect' integrity.
Again, you speak of things of which you know nothing. You have absolutely no idea of all the details involved. You assume innocence on the part of infants. You paint a picture of a group of people who just needed a gentle nudge in the right direction. History says otherwise.
Well, I guess your 'god' is more limited than even I surmised. I guess omnipotence is just not
one of its qualities. I suppose slaughter would be the logical choice for a 'god' with such little
power; hell, it didn't even slaughter them itself, but commanded its so-called faithful to carry
out the slaughter. A real spine on your 'god,' it has.
I'll take that as a compliment coming from you. Study to show yourself approved, a workman who needeth not to be ashamed. Rightly dividing the word of truth.
Again: if the 'truth' is 'God can slaughter whomever He wants whenever He wants,' then that
'god' is a monster. This is the 'truth' you are proclaiming.
Originally posted by Nemesio Originally posted by FreakyKBH You make it sound as though simply turning one's back on God is reason enough for Him to take one out of this life. Untrue.
That's right. Evidently one need not do anything for your 'god' to take a person out of
this life.
It absolutely demands concession on the part of God. You would have Him co ...[text shortened]... 'god' is a monster. This is the 'truth' you are proclaiming.
Nemesio
The sadly ironic thing is, you feel justified in your indignation, and yet are wholly incapable of basing such sentiment on anything substantive. What is your basis of fair? What is the basis of truth? Of right?
You point to the Bible only for those parts which support your narrow-minded view of God in the most egocentric manner possible. You worship a god that looks like you, despite the Bible's protestations otherwise. That biblical God? He's a monster. I guess when you're face-to-face with "the monster" you'll realize how far off you were in this life. Not that you'll be thinking of this conversation then, of course.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH The sadly ironic thing is, you feel justified in your indignation, and yet are wholly incapable of basing such sentiment on anything substantive. What is your basis of fair? What is the basis of truth? Of right?
It almost seems silly that you are asking me to justify my definition of 'fair' when yours entails
a fully-justified slaughter of infants. It truly blows the mind! I mean, you seriously don't
believe that objecting to the slaughter of infants is substantive!
You point to the Bible only for those parts which support your narrow-minded view of God in the most egocentric manner possible. You worship a god that looks like you, despite the Bible's protestations otherwise. That biblical God? He's a monster. I guess when you're face-to-face with "the monster" you'll realize how far off you were in this life. Not that you'll be thinking of this conversation then, of course.
Yeah. It sure is egocentric of me to object to the slaughter of infants. You're right. And, yeah,
I guess clemency, forgiveness, mercy, and compassion are really self-centered, too.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH I need not; the Bible already has.
That is, it is your contention that God's mercy is perfectly demonstrated by instructing His chosen
people to slaughter all the men, women, and children; and that sparing even a single infant from
this slaughter and raising him in the ways of the Lord would be anathema to Him.
This is the God you worship, right? This is an accurate statement of (part of) your faith, right?
Originally posted by FreakyKBH That's akin to Nemesio's "Do you still beat your wife" question. Everyone deserves death. Everyone is born spiritually dead, separated from God--- not on account of any personal sins, but on account of Adam's original sin. Therefore, no infant had become "so corrupt that they deserved death." They, like all of the rest of humanity, were born corrupt pr ...[text shortened]... nd children of that group of people made the course of action taken the preferred choice.
So why did you quote Psalm 14:3? And why did it take you so long to think up an answer to my straight forward question?
Originally posted by FreakyKBH I need not; the Bible already has.
No it has not. A document that is unintelligible to those of us lacking decoder rings does not constitute an answer. If I or Nemesio go to the Bible to seek that answer you have claimed lies there and ask you whether we are interpreting it correctly, I can guarantee that you will tell us we have not done so. So be reasonable and interpret it for us, instead of wasting another 10 pages of postings before you get to it.
Originally posted by twhitehead So why did you quote Psalm 14:3? And why did it take you so long to think up an answer to my straight forward question?
The quote was in response to charges you are leveling of which you know absolutely nothing. That isn't to say you are ignorant in general: we both know this not to be true. However, when it comes to theology proper, your posts reveal nearly abject ignorance... and I certainly don't mean that as an insult, even though it sounds so harsh.
Originally posted by twhitehead No it has not. A document that is unintelligible to those of us lacking decoder rings does not constitute an answer. If I or Nemesio go to the Bible to seek that answer you have claimed lies there and ask you whether we are interpreting it correctly, I can guarantee that you will tell us we have not done so. So be reasonable and interpret it for us, instead of wasting another 10 pages of postings before you get to it.
I will admit that--- to an unbeliever--- the Bible is close to 80% nonsense. The precious little that an unbeliever can understand deals with things of this world--- accessible to anyone who can read. Those things spiritual, however, are almost entirely lost on the unsaved. Can't help you there, nor do I apologize for the truth's remoteness to you: such is the plan of God to bring you to salvation, and from salvation to overflowing happiness.
I've already provided the answer. What are you considering unanswered?
Calling out Jorge Borges
14 Mar '08 01:05
Back to Top