Judgement, Injustice, and love

Originally posted by Proper Knob
How can children be guilty of anything?

I told you the children referred to here are men. It is like
saying the "children of Israel" or the "children of God".
The "children of the devil" means they are evil and have
infected other Israellites with their practices of adultry.
If one law of God's laws is broken they are quilty of the whole
law.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I told you the children referred to here are men. It is like
saying the "children of Israel" or the "children of God".
The "children of the devil" means they are evil and have
infected other Israellites with their practices of adultry.
If one law of God's laws is broken they are quilty of the whole
law.

The text is as plain as day -

............you must strike down the inhabitants of that city with the sword. Completely destroy everyone in it...............

Which part of 'everyone' are you having trouble with? Or are you suggesting that there were no children alive in Biblical times?!

The text is there for all to see and people can make their own judgements, your God of 'love' dished out collective punishment. It's not my fault you're blind. Enjoy your day.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
The text is as plain as day -

............you must strike down the inhabitants of that city with the sword. Completely destroy everyone in it...............

Which part of 'everyone' are you having trouble with? Or are you suggesting that there were no children alive in Biblical times?!

The text is there for all to see and people c ...[text shortened]... f 'love' dished out collective punishment. It's not my fault you're blind. Enjoy your day.

I see I am not going to be able to reason with you on this. I choose to
believe that evil was what was destroyed there and if it had infected
small children that may or may not be there that is just the way it
must be for my God is just and loving. His ways and judgments are
wiser than mine and I'm sure He is a much better chess player. 😀

Originally posted by LemonJello
Well, the bad stuff still sucks, so maybe your God should start showing up more often.[/b]

So when mankind reject God on some level he is suppose stick around and make sure that bad things don't happen to him, eh?

If someone tells me to get lost I don't know about you but I generally don't have an inclination to stick around.

Originally posted by whodey
So when mankind reject God on some level he is suppose stick around and make sure that bad things don't happen to him, eh?

If someone tells me to get lost I don't know about you but I generally don't have an inclination to stick around.

And that is why atrocious things only happen to non-believers, right?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
The text is as plain as day -

............you must strike down the inhabitants of that city with the sword. Completely destroy everyone in it...............

Which part of 'everyone' are you having trouble with? Or are you suggesting that there were no children alive in Biblical times?!

The text is there for all to see and people c ...[text shortened]... f 'love' dished out collective punishment. It's not my fault you're blind. Enjoy your day.

Perhaps you missed this text in Leviticus 18:28. God says that if the inhabitants defile the land then the land will vomit those inhabitants out. It makes no distinction as to possible "innocents" who are among them.

So clearly God is targeting wickedness and not innocents. Unfortunately, with any war there are innocents who suffer. The war between good and evil is ongoing.

Originally posted by bbarr
And that is why atrocious things only happen to non-believers, right?

Atrocious things happen to believers as well as I have mentioned.

Sin's destructive power makes no distinction.

Of course, had mankind not fallen then there would be no suffering.

Originally posted by whodey
Perhaps you missed this text in Leviticus 18:28. God says that if the inhabitants defile the land then the land will vomit those inhabitants out. It makes no distinction as to possible "innocents" who are among them.

So clearly God is targeting wickedness and not innocents. Unfortunately, with any war there are innocents who suffer. The war between good and evil is ongoing.

So deciding to worship another God is 'wickedness', but putting an entire city 'to the sword' is...........................loving and caring?

Originally posted by whodey
Atrocious things happen to believers as well as I have mentioned.

Sin's destructive power makes no distinction.

Of course, had mankind not fallen then there would be no suffering.

I guess God doesn't make any distinctions either. So, when a woman was raped and stabbed a couple nights ago here in Seattle, God decided not to prevent it because mankind has fallen. That is your view?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
So deciding to worship another God is 'wickedness', but putting an entire city 'to the sword' is...........................loving and caring?

The fall of mankind was when they divorced God from being their Lord. Now we have a world full of people doing whatever the hell they want for the most part. These actions are then based upon their own judgement or lack thereof to do nothing more than please themselves. Not having an all seeing all knowing being at the helm of such decisions, with a selfish nature to boot, is what leads to our destruction. You make is sound as if one little "sin" is no big deal when, in effect, such a sin has major implications.

As for those destroyed for their wickedness in the Bible, I can tell you that those destroyed in the holy land did such things as sacrifice their children to idols. What other abominable things they were up to is then left for the imagination. As for those in Soddom, if you read what Lot went through you might have a better appreciation as to just how vile they were.

Originally posted by bbarr
I guess God doesn't make any distinctions either. So, when a woman was raped and stabbed a couple nights ago here in Seattle, God decided not to prevent it because mankind has fallen. That is your view?

From my studies in the Bible, it is apparent to me that God allows sin to a point. For example, those in Soddom were allowed to continue in sin until God deemed them necessary to be destroyed. If God did not allow sin then those born with a sin nature, which would be us, would either not have free will or we would be destroyed altogether. However, it seems that if God does not step in at times it may lead to the destruction of mankind. This is the picture painted in Revelation. God withholds his wrath until it seems that his lack of intervention would mean the destruction of humanity.

So where is the line drawn in the sand? I suppose you only know when you see the hand writing on the wall.

Originally posted by whodey
From my studies in the Bible, it is apparent to me that God allows sin to a point. For example, those in Soddom were allowed to continue in sin until God deemed them necessary to be destroyed. If God did not allow sin then those born with a sin nature, which would be us, would either not have free will or we would be destroyed altogether. However, it seems ...[text shortened]... the line drawn in the sand? I suppose you only know when you see the hand writing on the wall.

I am not talking about not allowing sin. I am talking about failing to intervene in a rape and stabbing. Again, if I knew about it and could have stopped it, but didn't, you would judge me as morally in error. But God knew about it and could have stopped it, and didn't. Yet, on your view, He is not morally in error. Intervening to prevent a rape and stabbing does not infringe upon free will. The perpetrator freely wills to act. What is being infringed upon is action. And nobody thinks it is morally incorrect to prevent vicious actions. God Himself, on your view, issues commands that we not act this or that way. So, your position here is contradictory to the point of being incoherent.

Originally posted by whodey
The fall of mankind was when they divorced God from being their Lord. Now we have a world full of people doing whatever the hell they want for the most part. These actions are then based upon their own judgement or lack thereof to do nothing more than please themselves. Not having an all seeing all knowing being at the helm of such decisions, with a selfis ...[text shortened]... read what Lot went through you might have a better appreciation as to just how vile they were.

The fall of mankind was when they divorced God from being their Lord.

The fall of mankind allegedly occurred when Eve was coerced into taking a bite of fruit by a talking snake. I think that sums it up.

As for the rest, i shall return tomorrow. I'm off to bed.

Originally posted by bbarr
I am not talking about not allowing sin. I am talking about failing to intervene in a rape and stabbing. Again, if I knew about it and could have stopped it, but didn't, you would judge me as morally in error. But God knew about it and could have stopped it, and didn't. Yet, on your view, He is not morally in error. Intervening to prevent a rape and stabb ...[text shortened]... t this or that way. So, your position here is contradictory to the point of being incoherent.

The only rational conclusion to be reached is that the god as described by Christians is capricious, amoral, and evil.

Which makes sense as he was imagined up by primitive people without much in the way of moral development.



The issue that no theist will address is that it is meaningless to talk about the attributes of something that doesn't exist.

Before you can claim the bible as the word of god you have to demonstrate the god in question exists.

Nobody has ever done this, or could ever do this, the only being capable of demonstrating gods existence is god.

I ask any who believe in god.... "In what way is the god you believe in distinguishable from not existing?"

Please read the link below before answering.



http://www.users.qwest.net/~jcosta3/article_dragon.htm

Originally posted by bbarr
I am not talking about not allowing sin. I am talking about failing to intervene in a rape and stabbing. Again, if I knew about it and could have stopped it, but didn't, you would judge me as morally in error. But God knew about it and could have stopped it, and didn't. Yet, on your view, He is not morally in error. Intervening to prevent a rape and stabb ...[text shortened]... t this or that way. So, your position here is contradictory to the point of being incoherent.

God withdrew himself from mankind once mankind rejected him. Then when such a withdraw rouses objections from those who are suffering, what are we to think?

If God be the source of all love and life and we reject him, what is left?