- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
18 Nov 14
Originally posted by FMFim wondering what other words god gets to change the meaning of......
It seems Suzianne is using the No True Scots Genocide logical fallacy to sidestep the inconvenient meaning of certain words.
murder.
infanticide.
nepotism.
paranoia.
racism.
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
18 Nov 14
Originally posted by FMFNot understanding who the "Anak" were, nor how demons operate, and very little of the spirit world, I would be at a loss to explain in your world of thought.
What were the Canaanite babies, infants and children "guilty" of? And, aside from the literature of the Canaanites' enemies, who we are told openly wanted to take the Canaanites' land, what evidence do you have that the Canaanite babies, infants and children were "guilty" of anything that warranted their deliberate and calculated murder?
Let's just say, that not only the people, including children and animals, were "infected", for lack of a better word.
Again, God was saving the world, from total destruction.
Originally posted by checkbaiterchildren ARE innocent you psycho.
You are assuming that children were innocent.
Josh 11:22
Anakim
NKJV
OT:6061
OT:6061 `Anaq —
Anak = "neck"
the progenitor of a family, a tribe, or a race of giant people in Canaan
(from The Online Bible Thayer's Greek Lexicon and Brown Driver & Briggs Hebrew Lexicon, Copyright © 1993, Woodside Bible Fellowship, Ontario, Canada. Licensed from the Institute for Creation Research.)
no civilized country holds children responsible for their actions. it is always the parents fault.
no matter how evil their parents were (which already is an impossibility as no society can be entirely "evil"😉 the children are exempt.
were 10 year olds evil?
how about 8?
5 year olds?
how about toddlers who never yet walked on their own, let alone perpetrate evil?
did they deserve to be murdered?
18 Nov 14
Originally posted by checkbaiterWOW!
Not understanding who the "Anak" were, nor how demons operate, and very little of the spirit world, I would be at a loss to explain in your world of thought.
Let's just say, that not only the people, including children and animals, were "infected", for lack of a better word.
Again, God was saving the world, from total destruction.
now the children were infected by demons. demons that only stayed in canaan, minding their business. demons that got defeated by mere mortals, yet they were gonna destroy the world.
after reading your post, how can i continue debating? what point would it be? there aren't words to describe what you just said. i understand the internet is a place to unwind, to be all the psycho you can't be in the real life without being placed in a mental institution.
but dude, wow. just ... wow.
18 Nov 14
Originally posted by sonship
My comments to this paragraph will be deliberately skewed towards the OP of this thread.
So, somehow, man collectively "chose" a particular sin nature?
The New Testament speaks of two heads of humanity, or two men [b]the first man Adam and the second man who is Jesus Christ, also called "the last Adam".
Both o ...[text shortened]... alienation from the life of God. See Ephesians 4:18 - "alienated from the life of God".[/b]
We did not choose to become fallen sinful people.
My questions of clarification to Suzianne were all dealing in material fashion with her claim that we somehow collectively chose our nature. If you deny this claim, then I do not really understand the point of your addressing the clarification questions in length, since they will not apply to your view. I think you were just trying to force the discussion back to the subject of the OP in some way, which I suppose is fair enough.
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
Originally posted by Zahlanzi"Dude", forgive me, you are wiser and more just than God!
WOW!
now the children were infected by demons. demons that only stayed in canaan, minding their business. demons that got defeated by mere mortals, yet they were gonna destroy the world.
after reading your post, how can i continue debating? what point would it be? there aren't words to describe what you just said. i understand the internet is a p ...[text shortened]... in the real life without being placed in a mental institution.
but dude, wow. just ... wow.
19 Nov 14
Originally posted by checkbaiterThis sounds like a German racial "expert" talking about the Jews in the 1930s or early 1940s.
Not understanding who the "Anak" were, nor how demons operate, and very little of the spirit world, I would be at a loss to explain in your world of thought.
Let's just say, that not only the people, including children and animals, were "infected", for lack of a better word.
Again, God was saving the world, from total destruction.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by LemonJelloWe did not choose to become fallen sinful people.
My questions of clarification to Suzianne were all dealing in material fashion with her claim that we somehow collectively chose our nature. If you deny this claim, then I do not really understand the point of your addressing the clarification questions in length, since they will not app ...[text shortened]... force the discussion back to the subject of the OP in some way, which I suppose is fair enough.
My questions of clarification to Suzianne were all dealing in material fashion with her claim that we somehow collectively chose our nature.
I think we if we are given a choice to brought out of a certain state, to not choose that way out, is to choose the other.
It is true that the first man Adam chose something which effected all the rest of us involuntarily. But with the coming of Christ, and our refusal to be saved, we choose at that point to remain with that fallen state we inherited.
This may be the way to understand Jesus' words about the culpability of those religionists who fought against Him.
"If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.
He who hates Me hates My Father also.
If I did not do among them the works which no one else has done, they would not have sin; but now they have both seen and hated both Me and My Father.
But it is so that the word written in their law may be fulfilled, 'They hated Me without a cause.' " (John 15:22-25)
The coming of Jesus forces a choice upon us, it appears.
The "collective" aspect, I am not sure about. Some in the collection, this side of Christ's coming, can choose something other than the sinful status quo. Or they can choose to remain in what they were born into.
Originally posted by sonshipAn obvious objection to this has been pointed out to you time and time and time again. I am not sure why you fail to grasp this basic point, but I will refresh your memory yet again: nobody, excepting those who already theistically think the same as you, thinks that the Christic redemptive "choice" you outline exists. Do you just not understand that atheists, for example, do not think that there is any such choice before them? If you want to establish general culpability here, you need to do it on the basis of choices that one would have reasons to think are actually before him/her in the first place. The choice you outline is an imaginary one for a lot of persons.My questions of clarification to Suzianne were all dealing in material fashion with her claim that we somehow collectively chose our nature.
I think we if we are given a choice to brought out of a certain state, to not choose that way out, is to choose the other.
It is true that the first man Adam chose something which effected ...[text shortened]... hing other than the sinful status quo. Or they can choose to remain in what they were born into.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by LemonJello
An obvious objection to this has been pointed out to you time and time and time again. I am not sure why you fail to grasp this basic point, but I will refresh your memory yet again: nobody, excepting those who already theistically think the same as you, thinks that the Christic redemptive "choice" you outline exists. Do you just not understand that atheists, for example, do not think that there is any such choice before them?
I understand this. Please do not expect that I will take this information as a cause to agree with you that the Gospel is not true.
My grandmother did not believe that man walked on the moon in 1969. She thought the idea was ridiculous. She laughed at the report.
I did not take that unbelief as proof that it did not happen.
If you want to establish general culpability here, you need to do it on the basis of choices that one would have reasons to think are actually before him/her in the first place. The choice you outline is an imaginary one for a lot of persons.
I believe that Bible that no one is with excuse to not believe in a Creator with divine power. That is a start.
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven upon all ungodliness and unrghteousness of men who hold down the truth in unrighteousness.
Because that which is known of God is manifest within them, for God manifested it to them.
For the invisible things of Him, both His eternal power and divine characteristic, have been clearly seen since the creation of the world, so that they would be without excuse; " (Romans 1:18-20)
The posture of atheists doesn't change my mind about this.
Paul says that deniers of the Creator "hold down the truth in unrighteousness".
The response I am likely to get from atheists, to me, amounts to "But you don't understand. Look how well I can hold it down. I am really smart and intelligent. I can hold down the truth very very well. I don't see you able to lift it up after I hold it down."
To not believe in a Creator with eternal power and divine characteristics has no excuse. That is a start on the matter of God's existence. A continuation is a response to a call that sins will be judged and forgiveness is needed.
If you want to establish general culpability here, you need to do it on the basis of choices that one would have reasons to think are actually before him/her in the first place. The choice you outline is an imaginary one for a lot of persons.
I do not think the message of Jesus is imaginary.
I think some begin by "hold[ing] down the truth in unrighteousness" concerning God's reality.
The other matters take time. And I think they will be faced squarely for some kind of decision by anyone able to participate in this discussion.
All that you have said here in response is just some assurance that you can prove to me you are very adept at holding down the truth in unrighteousness. I know you are well skilled, well equipped, well trained even, and well motivated.
While coming to grips the need for reconciliation to God does take even a possible whole life time, to realize, all men are without excuse to not know that a Supreme Creator is.
So I am likely to view your next reply as another display of how well adept you want to show me you ARE at holding down the truth about God's existence.
Call it an argument from authority if you wish.
This does not mean it cannot be true.
It only means it is not logically rigorous according to typical academic debating standards.
