Originally posted by TheSkipper
Lot's wife (turned into a pillar of salt) to name just one of many.

reasonable evidence?

Originally posted by snowinscotland
reasonable evidence?

Genesis 19 (I think). Granted, not really what I would call reasonable evidence, but so far as I know its all there is.

Jesus Christ is going to cast countless unrepentant sinners into eternal damnation on the day of judgment, making the destruction of the Amorites seem colossally insignificant. If God's condemnation of the Amorites was a misrepresentation, then I suppose you will argue that God's condemnation of unrepentant sinners on the day of judgment is as well. News flash: the God found in the NT is no less ...[text shortened]... u don't believe the God of Jesus Christ merits our attention, that's your problem, not mine.[/b]

Okay, then. God demands your fealty upon pain of eternal damnation. 'Love me, or I'll smite you eternally,' He says.

A real pal, a real symbol of goodness, a real 'God of love.'

You said it right to SwissGambit: fear is your normative state. You call it 'love' so you don't look
like a frightened little child -- scared of death, scared of the unknown.

So you call your fear 'God' so it has a little majesty.

Whatever, bud.

Nemesio

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Why does God have a 'chosen people' anyway? Doesn't that smack of racial favoritism? Aren't we all God's children?[/b]

Why indeed. Well to begin with who are the Hebrew people? Where did they come from? God works through faith and there was once a man of faith named Abraham. God said that Abraham was a friend of his because he placed his faith in him. In fact, Abraham was deemed righteous because he placed his faith in him and only because of this fact.

Having said all of that, because Abraham placed his faith in God, God, in turn, was able to work through him. Faith has an element of free will in it because it is simply agreeing with what God has spoken. Once both parties are in agreement, God is then free to work in them so as not to violate their free will. This is all that God asks. Believe what I tell you and let me work through you. It matters little what your past may hold or what problems currently hold you down. And guess what, God was then able to not only bless Abraham, but Abrhams descendants as well. Not only that, God then said that through Abraham and his descendants, ALL nations of the world would be blessed. All God needs is someone willing to light a spark to set the whole world ablaze, but we must be willing particpants.

As far as Abrahams descendants being superior to all others I would say that this is not the case. They simply have a role to fill in order to reach out to the rest of the world such as ushering in the coming of the Messiah. As a matter of fact, when the Israelite people rejected God he then chastised them and allowed other nations to come in and occupy them and take them away into captivity. God forwarned the Israelite people that to reject him would mean chastisement and that he would vomit out any who pollute the Holy Land. However, God never gave up on them and has never given up on them. It is prophesied that the Messiah will come a second time and be reconciled once again with the descendants of Abraham.

Like it or not as parents we can either place our offsrping in a positon of blessing or cursing based upon how we raise them and live our lives. In a way, they are an extension of ourselves. Is it fair? Well, whether it is fair or not is inmaterial because that is simply the way that it is.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Okay, then. God demands your fealty upon pain of eternal damnation. 'Love me, or I'll smite you eternally,' He says.

A real pal, a real symbol of goodness, a real 'God of love.'

You said it right to SwissGambit: fear is your normative state. You call it 'love' so you don't look
like a frightened little child -- scared of death, scared of the unkno ...[text shortened]...
So you call your fear 'God' so it has a little majesty.

Whatever, bud.

Nemesio

Is it better to be loved or feared? I say both. 😛

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]Don't hold your breath. I've read the bible about 50 times cover-to-cover, including all the genealogies, and this is what I've taken from it.

It's amazing that after reading the bible so many times, you haven't discovered the importance of fearing the LORD. True wisdom is found in fearing the LORD.[/b]

If I believed he actually existed, you'd better believe I'd be afraid of your God. He's like the ultimate mafia boss, heartlessly whacking any who dare to cross him. I wouldn't call the fear of the lord wisdom - I'd call it survival instinct.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Sure it assumes all those things. I thought you were looking for a hypothetical situation where God might be morally justified in sanctioning genocide. It really comes down to man having limited knowledge. In this situation God has knowledge that man does not. From man's point of view it's impossible to justify. With these additional inputs, it is possibl the proper tests. However with the additional knowlege such a suggestion could be justified.

I am inclined to grant some leeway in any hypothetical on this topic; however, I am not sure I can go as far as genetically transmitted sin, amongst others. The three assumptions all combined seem downright outlandish to me. On this issue, I can't stretch as far as people of faith can.

Originally posted by whodey
Is it better to be loved or feared? I say both. 😛

If you are truly loved, then fear is utterly unnecessary.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
If you are truly loved, then fear is utterly unnecessary.

Nemesio

Not so. For example, you may know that your parent loves you but fear them when you know you disobey them due to the prospective consequences. I say it is best have have both in the parent/child relationship. I think all of us have experienced this to some degree. In fact, the fear of God is simply to abhor sin. It is not just that you fear how God will judge you, rather, it is also a realization that sin is destructive.

Originally posted by whodey
Not so. For example, you may know that your parent loves you but fear them when you know you disobey them due to the prospective consequences. I say it is best have have both in the parent/child relationship. I think all of us have experienced this to some degree. In fact, the fear of God is simply to abhor sin. It is not just that you fear how God will judge you, rather, it is also a realization that sin is destructive.

Fear of you parents is a sign that your parents are imperfect. It means that your parents use punishment as a means of ensuring that your actions conform to their wishes. It shows that they have not found a better method.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Okay, then. God demands your fealty upon pain of eternal damnation. 'Love me, or I'll smite you eternally,' He says.

A real pal, a real symbol of goodness, a real 'God of love.'

You said it right to SwissGambit: fear is your normative state. You call it 'love' so you don't look
like a frightened little child -- scared of death, scared of the unkno ...[text shortened]...
So you call your fear 'God' so it has a little majesty.

Whatever, bud.

Nemesio

Okay, then. God demands your fealty upon pain of eternal damnation. 'Love me, or I'll smite you eternally,' He says.

God asks this not only of me, but of everyone, including you.

"Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matthew 10:28).

A real pal, a real symbol of goodness, a real 'God of love.'

God is who he is. He is love, but he is also infinitely holy. Since he cannot change who he is to conform to us, he must change us to conform to himself. Fear of the Lord is recognition of the danger of failing to obey the Lord, since the will of the Lord is to bring us into conformity to himself. Here are the benefits of fearing the Lord:

(1) The beginning of knowledge: "Fear of the Lord is the foundation of true knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline" (Proverbs 1:7).

(2) Causes one to hate evil: "All who fear the Lord will hate evil. Therefore, I hate pride and arrogance, corruption and perverse speech" (Proverbs 8:13).

(3) Prolongs one's life: "Fear of the Lord lengthens one’s life, but the years of the wicked are cut short" (Proverbs 10:27).

(4) Provides confidence; is the fountain of life: "Those who fear the Lord are secure; he will be a refuge for their children. Fear of the Lord is a life-giving fountain; it offers escape from the snares of death" (Proverbs 14:26-27).

(5) Prompts one to depart from evil: "Unfailing love and faithfulness make atonement for sin. By fearing the Lord, people avoid evil" (Proverbs 16:6).

(6) Leads to a satisfying life; spares one from evil: "Fear of the Lord leads to life, bringing security and protection from harm" (Proverbs 19:23).

(7) The way to riches, honor and life: "True humility and fear of the Lord lead to riches, honor, and long life" (Proverbs 22:4).

You said it right to SwissGambit: fear is your normative state. You call it 'love' so you don't look like a frightened little child -- scared of death, scared of the unknown.

Fear of death and the unknown is the lot of faithless, godless people. Fear of the Lord, far from the normative state, is accompanied by the comfort of the Holy Spirit:

"The church then had peace throughout Judea, Galilee, and Samaria, and it became stronger as the believers lived in the fear of the Lord. And with the encouragement of the Holy Spirit, it also grew in numbers" (Acts 9:31).

So you call your fear 'God' so it has a little majesty.

Whatever, bud. 🙂

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I am inclined to grant some leeway in any hypothetical on this topic; however, I am not sure I can go as far as genetically transmitted sin, amongst others. The three assumptions all combined seem downright outlandish to me. On this issue, I can't stretch as far as people of faith can.

What makes this 'outlandish' other than you can no longer say that no one has given you a hypothetical situation in which genocide is justified? In asking for such a situation, the existence of God is a given. With the existence of God, the idea that God could have more knowlege than man is a given. The point is that additional knowledge can change whether or not justification is possible. Ultimate justification can only be made with ultimate knowledge.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]Okay, then. God demands your fealty upon pain of eternal damnation. 'Love me, or I'll smite you eternally,' He says.

God asks this not only of me, but of everyone, including you.

"Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matthew 10:28).
...[text shortened]... ur fear 'God' so it has a little majesty.[/b]

Whatever, bud. 🙂[/b]

You´d follow a god who requires that the basis of your beliefs is to fear him? Sorry, but I don´t understand why anyone would want to be a part of that. To me that´s like some poor kid following the school bully around pretending to be friends with him just so he doesn´t get the crap kicked out of him.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
If I believed he actually existed, you'd better believe I'd be afraid of your God. He's like the ultimate mafia boss, heartlessly whacking any who dare to cross him.

"Crucify" is actually the verb form.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]Okay, then. God demands your fealty upon pain of eternal damnation. 'Love me, or I'll smite you eternally,' He says.

God asks this not only of me, but of everyone, including you.

"Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matthew 10:28).
...[text shortened]... ur fear 'God' so it has a little majesty.[/b]

Whatever, bud. 🙂[/b]

I'm sure that others have pointed this out, but arguing your points by reference to a book that your rhetorical opponent doesn't accept as truth does little to advance your argument.

It demonstrates how nimble your biblical memory is, but mostly, it shows a disappointing inability to engage the enemy on common ground (or even, as would be more persuasive, their own ground).

Can you make your case without a concordance?