Taking a census = a very bad thing.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Omnipotence Paradox:

"Could God create a stone so heavy that even He could not lift it?"

One of many rejoinders to the false stone paradox...

“Omnipotence doesn't mean breaking the laws of logic

A common response from Christian philosophers, such as Norman Geisler or William Lane Craig, is that the paradox assumes a wrong definition of omnipotence. Omnipotence, they say, does not mean that God can do anything at all but, rather, that he can do anything that's possible according to his nature. The distinction is important. God cannot perform logical absurdities; he cannot, for instance, make 1+1=3. Likewise, God cannot make a being greater than himself because he is, by definition, the greatest possible being. God is limited in his actions to his nature. The Bible supports this, they assert, in passages such as Hebrews 6:18, which says it is "impossible for God to lie."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox

Originally posted by @rajk999
If it is the truth why not say it proudly.
Are you a men pleaser?
Not a good thing.

I thought I would give you credit where it's due, but I see that was a mistake. Pride is not a virtue. Are you a man pleaser? If so, why don't you run off to a homosexual dating site or something. Because the only positive you are achieving here is teaching people how NOT to act.

Originally posted by @tom-wolsey
I thought I would give you credit where it's due, but I see that was a mistake. Pride is not a virtue. Are you a man pleaser? If so, why don't you run off to a homosexual dating site or something. Because the only positive you are achieving here is teaching people how NOT to act.

You said : It's not something I say proudly but it is the truth according to Scripture.

Why cant you speak the truth proudly.?
Why me speaking the truth proudly leads to abuse from you about homosexuality?

Originally posted by @rajk999
You said : It's not something I say proudly but it is the truth according to Scripture.

Why cant you speak the truth proudly.?
Why me speaking the truth proudly leads to abuse from you about homosexuality?

I said, speaking of God visiting punishment upon others--especially when speaking to those who would potentially be on the receiving end of it--is not something I would say proudly. It's a matter of common decency and compassion. Perhaps you would say such a thing with a smile on your face, I don't know.

I was trying to give you credit for speaking truth--as you don't seem to receive a lot of credit around here--and you answered back with a sharp rebuke and suggested I'm some kind of "man pleaser." I answered back in kind. I don't normally answer a fool according to his folly but I'm not very tolerant of being slapped in the face and rebuked when I'm trying to be courteous to someone.

Originally posted by @tom-wolsey to Rajk999
I said, speaking of God visiting punishment upon others--especially when speaking to those who would potentially be on the receiving end of it--is not something I would say proudly. It's a matter of common decency and compassion. Perhaps you would say such a thing with a smile on your face, I don't know.

I was trying to give you credit fo ...[text shortened]... ry tolerant of being slapped in the face and rebuked when I'm trying to be courteous to someone.

I don't get why you asked him out of the blue "why don't you run off to a homosexual dating site or something?" What was that all about? Just online disinhibition on your part?

Originally posted by @fmf
I don't get why you asked him out of the blue "why don't you run off to a homosexual dating site or something?" What was that all about? Just online disinhibition on your part?

He is not familiar with the bible phrase 'men pleasers'. These are men who do and say things just to please others rather that speaking the truth. This is what he said he does. He thinks it has something to do with homosexuality.

Originally posted by @tom-wolsey
I said, speaking of God visiting punishment upon others--especially when speaking to those who would potentially be on the receiving end of it--is not something I would say proudly. It's a matter of common decency and compassion. Perhaps you would say such a thing with a smile on your face, I don't know.

I was trying to give you credit for speaking ...[text shortened]... ry tolerant of being slapped in the face and rebuked when I'm trying to be courteous to someone.

Credit ? You think Im around here tor credit?
Do you think I need credit from you for speaking the truth?
Are you posting here for credit?

I said 'men pleaser', not 'man pleaser'.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Why are God's rules harsh? And how do you equate this harshness with his alleged omnibenevolence?

(a) You ask, ‘why are God’s rules harsh,’ but I would reply that harsh is an incredibly relative word. It is impossible to say that these things are particularly harsh or out of step.

Someone could be said to be harsh for having a 19 year old boy executed for sleeping on guard duty. But, if I were to tell you that a year prior an entire legion was overrun because of a guard sleeping on duty, and thousands of men died because of it, the context would then be clear.

Such a penalty is not harsh.

Thus, here, this penalty is perhaps not harsh at all, either, especially considering the potential disaster that could have come from it.

(b) What is omnibenevolence? If you mean, only good things ever happen, this still has many interpretations. Is it not good that evil is punished?

Moreover, why would we conceptualize life on Earth as a continued good, when heaven awaits the righteous, and hell awaits those who are patently evil, receiving their just do?

You are basically suggesting that you can look at something that happened and declare that it is good or bad without knowing the end consequences of it.

This is the fundamental problem of the materialist: they weigh everything as if there is no immortal soul.

That is certainly depressing – because if there is no soul, and there is only matter, as they suggest, then certainly there is no justice. We cannot dispute that.

God demonstrated very persuasively the injustice of the world when He sent His only Son to be crucified on earth. I think he knows well what the world is like.

This brings up an irony: atheists always complain about how unjust the world is to a man who was crucified for spreading a message of universal love.

There is obviously more to the actual Chronicles 21 that would be clear from the context of those who were living.

Joab clearly warns David against this. But it notes in 21:6 that Joab found the order so repulsive he could not even do the whole thing.

Clearly, the census was an indicator of David stepping out of line. Got Questions also brings up an important aspect within Hebrew tradition and the concept of a census that helps clarify the situation more:

As to why God was angry at David, in those times, a man only had the right to count or number what belonged to him. Israel did not belong to David; Israel belonged to God. In Exodus 30:12 God told Moses, “When you take a census of the Israelites to count them, each one must pay the LORD a ransom for his life at the time he is counted. Then no plague will come on them when you number them.”

https://www.gotquestions.org/David-census.html

We can also imagine that not only did God know the intentions of David who was taking the census, but Joab also knew that there was some motive involved that even inspired him to be repulsed.

And remember, David has a special relationship with God. It is one thing if Jon the illiterate shepherd gets drunk one night under the stars. It is another thing if the man who was led by God into this very position, who has a special bond with Him, and who is the King of God's people takes a course of action that is utterly incorrect.

Once you contextualize all of this, you get a far fairer picture of the scenario.

This is one of the problems, though: people make most of their decisions in very low context.

Originally posted by @philokalia
(a) You ask, ‘why are God’s rules harsh,’ but I would reply that harsh is an incredibly relative word. It is impossible to say that these things are particularly harsh or out of step.

Someone could be said to be harsh for having a 19 year old boy executed for sleeping on guard duty. But, if I were to tell you that a year prior an entire legion was ov ...[text shortened]... unjust the world is to [b]a man who was crucified for spreading a message of universal love.[/b]

It sounds like you are hiding your inability to acknowledge that interpretations of the bible which involve deliberately burning people alive for eternity are morally incoherent and abhorrent, behind a sort of flaky moral relativism that allows you to believe that shooting a teenager for being asleep on duty is somehow ok.

It is probably this loose moral thinking that has facilitated your tendency to embrace ideas on racial genetics which support casual racism and which you defend by pretending you have never seen an argument against.

Originally posted by @philokalia
And remember, David has a special relationship with God. It is one thing if Jon the illiterate shepherd gets drunk one night under the stars. It is another thing if the man who was led by God into this very position, who has a special bond with Him, and who is the King of God's people takes a course of action that is utterly incorrect.

Do you have a “special relationship” with God?

Do you see a parallel between the “illiterate shepherd” whom you seem to think is excused from failing to watch his flock, and the 19 year old you casually put to death in your previous post?

Originally posted by @philokalia
Someone could be said to be harsh for having a 19 year old boy executed for sleeping on guard duty. But, if I were to tell you that a year prior an entire legion was overrun because of a guard sleeping on duty, and thousands of men died because of it, the context would then be clear.

Such a penalty is not harsh.

Thus, here, this penalty is perhap ...[text shortened]... rsh at all, either, especially considering the potential disaster that could have come from it.

What analogy are you drawing between someone being punished for negligence that put thousands of lives at risk, on one hand, and a person being punished - for eternity no less - for lacking a certain religious belief that causes no disaster or harm to anyone? If there is a valid non-ludicrous analogy in what you've offered, please point it out.

Originally posted by @philokalia
This brings up an irony: atheists always complain about how unjust the world is to a man who was crucified for spreading a message of universal love.

Firstly, atheists do not complain to Jesus about anything. Secondly, Jesus was executed for sedition and/or blasphemy or most likely both - and not for a message of "universal love" that non-Jews attributed to him. Thirdly, unlike Christians, atheists are unlikely to get confused about "love" and "torture" unless they have been psychologically damaged by domestic or child abuse at the hands of those who "love" them. Finally, you'll be hard pressed to find an atheist who buys into a doctrine whereby the Christian God would not forgive humans for disobeying him until after his "son" was executed by the Romans.

Originally posted by @divegeester
Do you have a “special relationship” with God?

Do you see a parallel between the “illiterate shepherd” whom you seem to think is excused from failing to watch his flock, and the 19 year old you casually put to death in your previous post?

Oh no, I do not.

... And a drunk shepherd that allows literlaly a sheep to get eaten by a wolf is far different from a man who, when the enemy is in range, falls asleep and theoretically enables the enemy to kill hundreds of his comrades-in-arms.

Originally posted by @divegeester
It sounds like you are hiding your inability to acknowledge that interpretations of the bible which involve deliberately burning people alive for eternity are morally incoherent and abhorrent, behind a sort of flaky moral relativism that allows you to believe that shooting a teenager for being asleep on duty is somehow ok.

It is probably this loose m ...[text shortened]... upport casual racism and which you defend by pretending you have never seen an argument against.

Yes, it is OK to do that.

Yes, gehenna is real.

Ummm, no, I am not a racist. I resent the accusation.