True belief in god (or Christ)

Originally posted by karoly aczel
When you put it like that , yes. I find it wrong.

would you like to be able to live forever while suffering colon cancer? (i hear it is particularly painful, feel free to substitute colon cancer with any other painful condition).


i will now take the liberty of anticipating some of your replies.

in response to the above question, you will ask why does god have to put diseases on earth in the first place. so now i ask you, would you have god remove all diseases? ok considering diseases removed, will you like to live forever if by any chance, you are poor? maybe you would like god to give you wealth as well? and by extension, give wealth (or simply sufficient possesions to live a decent life) to everyone on earth? ok, god could give that as well. now only remains the problem of earth being finite, would you like god to make earth infinite to accomodate new people being born and nobody dieing? after that there may still be asteroids, volcanoes, tornadoes. would you like to live forever after being covered by several hundred tons of lava?

ok, let's take away the natural disasters too. and in fact, to cut this short, let's take away any hardships ever (to not turn an eternal life into a burden). what do you have? a realm in which everyone lives forever, has anything they want, no hardships, no pain, eternal happiness? isn't that kind of like paradise which is already promissed to us if we live a good life?

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]===================================
Righteous, i've heard that word used before in this context. Here's the dictionary definition of 'righteous' -
======================================

If you are an atheist then you are hard pressed to explain by what moral law you discriminate between righteous and unrighteous.

You have to subcons ...[text shortened]... andom colliding of energy and matter with no purpose, goal, or plan.[/b]

the bible said god ordered joshua to kill everyone conquested. everyone. including women and children. but he spared the whore that betrayed everyone like a coward 😀.

how is that righteous?

now here is a dangerous concept: rather than having a god that casually brakes his own rules whenever he wants without a reason, a god that casually discards some lives except those of a select few, we have a group of nomads who LIED about god telling them to kill those people instead of bothering to integrate the conquered people and maybe having to deal with rebellions for a time.

the second alternative only implies a supreme being who won't intervene absolutely every time the barbarious little pricks engage in attrocities. he is a little careless with his creation but at least he allows them to make mistakes and maybe learn from them. the first alternative has a supreme being picking sides and deliberately causing pain. also bear in mind that the rumor goes the "heathens" (non-jews) went to hell where they will stay until the final judgement. that jesus only took the jews who died before him to heaven, not the poor cannibals from togo islands or the greeks or whoever. which means plato and aristotle and other great thinkers of humanity are roasting in hell but joshua the war criminal is having a blast in heaven.

Originally posted by jaywill
===================================
Righteous, i've heard that word used before in this context. Here's the dictionary definition of 'righteous' -
======================================

If you are an atheist then you are hard pressed to explain by what moral law you discriminate between righteous and unrighteous.

You have to subcons andom colliding of energy and matter with no purpose, goal, or plan.[/b]

If you are an atheist then you are hard pressed to explain by what moral law you discriminate between righteous and unrighteous.
You have to subconsciously adopt a Judeo / Christian world view in order to assume leverage to scold God as being unrighteous.

Secondly, you have no way of knowing how slow or quick the execution of those under Joshua's conquest was in most cases.
It is quite possible that beside the anxiety of knowing they were about to die, most possibly never knew what hit them.
The Israelite kings had a reputation of being "[b]merciful" kings as I pointed out. (See 1 Kings 20:31) [/b]

Utter garbage! Without adopting any "God"-centred (and hence vacuous) definition of "righteous" I can quite easily discriminate between the activities one associates with nice people or pillocks. My sense of morality trumps that of your comic-book formulation of god.

Originally posted by Agerg
[b] If you are an atheist then you are hard pressed to explain by what moral law you discriminate between righteous and unrighteous.
You have to subconsciously adopt a Judeo / Christian world view in order to assume leverage to scold God as being unrighteous.

Secondly, you have no way of knowing how slow or quick the execution of those under Joshua's ople or pillocks. My sense of morality trumps that of your comic-book formulation of god.

====================================
Utter garbage! Without adopting any "God"-centred (and hence vacuous) definition of "righteous" I can quite easily discriminate between the activities one associates with nice people or pillocks. My sense of morality trumps that of your comic-book formulation of god.
============================== [/b]

That is because you are created in the image of God and have the "knowledge of good and evil" which has been activated in you from the early human history.

But according to your own philosophy your explanation for this excercised sense ofmoral absolutes is garbage. You atheistic philosophy has no satisfactory basis for morality. So you refuse to give credit where it is due.

But being in truth, God's creation, yes you can have a sense of morality. Your philosophy just cannot account for it.

And once again, the human being who was most emeniently qualified to pronouce a critical judgement against the God of the Old Testament was Jesus Christ . And He did not do so.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]====================================
Utter garbage! Without adopting any "God"-centred (and hence vacuous) definition of "righteous" I can quite easily discriminate between the activities one associates with nice people or pillocks. My sense of morality trumps that of your comic-book formulation of god.
============================== [/b] ...[text shortened]... ment against the God of the Old Testament was Jesus Christ . And He did not do so.[/b]

I consider my moral code to be based on empathy, the development of which trait I ascribe to the fact that my species evolved to live in groups. This may be god's work, but it is not necessarily so.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]====================================
Utter garbage! Without adopting any "God"-centred (and hence vacuous) definition of "righteous" I can quite easily discriminate between the activities one associates with nice people or pillocks. My sense of morality trumps that of your comic-book formulation of god.
============================== [/b] ment against the God of the Old Testament was Jesus Christ . And He did not do so.[/b]

No such claims are substantiated in the Qu-ran. You are thus mistaken.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
the bible said god ordered joshua to kill everyone conquested. everyone. including women and children. but he spared the whore that betrayed everyone like a coward 😀.

how is that righteous?

now here is a dangerous concept: rather than having a god that casually brakes his own rules whenever he wants without a reason, a god that casually discards some ers of humanity are roasting in hell but joshua the war criminal is having a blast in heaven.

=========================================
the bible said god ordered joshua to kill everyone conquested. everyone. including women and children. but he spared the whore that betrayed everyone like a coward .
========================================

Rahab the Harlot was a precurser of justification by faith. And Christ will save you, YOU, from the miserable end that you deserve on the same basis.

Yes, if they remained in the house, Joshua would be faithful to his promise and they would not be judged. It is an early picture for us in symbol of justification by faith.

Joshua did not look into the house to see who was there. He did not examine who was inside seeking refuge. As long as they remained in the house the judgment would pass over them.

In like manner no matter what our sins were, if we take refuge in Christ and His redemptive death on Calvary the eternal damnation of God's judgment will not fall upon us. This way "whosever believes should not perish but have eternal life" is secured for all who do not reject the Son of God.

The same is seen in the Passover Lamb in Egypt. The blood was placed upon the lentils of the door. The destroying angel did not look into the house to see who and what kind of person was inside. As long as the angel saw the blood the judgment would passover all who were inside. They would be saved.

And if you believe into Christ, God also will look upon you as if you had never sinned. It is not as though your sins are not judged. They are judged on your behalf in a substitute Who bore them up on the cross that justice would be accomplished on your behalf.

It is quite a plan of salvation. And to refuse it, I think, is terribly foolish.

==================================
now here is a dangerous concept: rather than having a god that casually brakes his own rules whenever he wants without a reason, a god that casually discards some lives except those of a select few, we have a group of nomads who LIED about god telling them to kill those people instead of bothering to integrate the conquered people and maybe having to deal with rebellions for a time.
===================================

From Genesis 15 we see God telling Abraham that the sinners of Canaan were not yet bad enough. They needed another 400 years of moral decline before the harsh judgment was appropriate.

Four hundred years latter, their abominations were bad enough to merit the conquest and judgment carried out by Joshua. Yet God extended more time for them to repent and/or disperse their evil centers. The Isrealites wandered in the wilderness after the Red Sea crossing for another 40 years.

That is 440 years that God gave them time to stop thier abominable sinful society. The hardest of the hard were the ones left. And they were judged.

Jericho with the other societies saw what was coming for 40 years. God's judging of them strongly implies that they had warnings from Him. We know there were Gentile prophets of God like Balaam and Jethro. So we can assume that there was some divine warnings to repent and or disperse their centers of evil.

The hardest of the hard were left and they were judged, though Joshua was not able to carry out all orders with total success.

Latter in the Bible there are plenty of instances where we see God angry with a people for this reason, they went TOO FAR in carrying out a judgment upon another nation.

There are places in the Old Testament where God says that He used a nation to execute judgment but they went too far in cruelity. Now He would discipline them for their excess. Both instances are of the same God in the same book.

This leads me to believe that God has no problem in leveling out the appropriate justice. The thought of God having to sit at your feet or my feet and learn a lesson on morality is totally unsatisfactory to me.

And of course temporal judgments of death do not necessarily mean eternal judgments of perdition. But they do serve as examples.

The book of Joshua is not the last book of the Bible. And in the unfolding and progressinve revelation of God's being, it would be naive to think He would not show us both the severity and kindness of God. A well rounded and full picture of His character is presented. I did not stop reading with Joshua. I went on to read through the New Testament as well.

======================
the second alternative only implies a supreme being who won't intervene absolutely every time the barbarious little pricks engage in attrocities. he is a little careless with his creation but at least he allows them to make mistakes and maybe learn from them. the first alternative has a supreme being picking sides and deliberately causing pain. also bear in mind that the rumor goes the "heathens" (non-jews) went to hell where they will stay until the final judgement. that jesus only took the jews who died before him to heaven, not the poor cannibals from togo islands or the greeks or whoever. which means plato and aristotle and other great thinkers of humanity are roasting in hell but joshua the war criminal is having a blast in heaven.
====================================

In stead of going by what the rumors are you would be better served to carefully read the Bible.

A strawman a minute, one right after the other, won't help much if you really want to get into the Bible.

Your last paragraph is just filled with nonsensical constructs from a lazy neglect of the details of what is written in the Bible.

Originally posted by Agerg
No such claims are substantiated in the Qu-ran. You are thus mistaken.

===============================
No such claims are substantiated in the Qu-ran. You are thus mistaken.
==================================

Find yourself a Muslim and argue with them if you want to discuss the claims of the Quran.

I am not arguing for the Quran.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]===============================
No such claims are substantiated in the Qu-ran. You are thus mistaken.
==================================

Find yourself a Muslim and argue with them if you want to discuss the claims of the Quran.

I am not arguing for the Quran.[/b]

I have faith the Qu-ran is more true than the Bible. Hence any of your appeals to the Bible are merely appeals to lies.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
the bible said god ordered joshua to kill everyone conquested. everyone. including women and children. but he spared the whore that betrayed everyone like a coward 😀.

how is that righteous?

now here is a dangerous concept: rather than having a god that casually brakes his own rules whenever he wants without a reason, a god that casually discards some ers of humanity are roasting in hell but joshua the war criminal is having a blast in heaven.

================================
the second alternative only implies a supreme being who won't intervene absolutely every time
==================================

No, God did not act the same way everytime. He did act to set an example and show that His attitude towards man's sins have not changed.

And often because judgment is not carrie out swiftly the hearts of sinners is set more to commit sins.

His patience and longsuffering are to lead us to repentence. If were do not respond to His word we are simply accumulating righteous wrath upon us day after day.

So one judgement, for example, against Sodom was set as an example. His attitude has not changed. And Jesus said that in the last judgment some of Sodom would condemn those who rejected the Gospel of offer in Christ.

In other words something like them saying "What was it with you guys anyway ? If we had had one like Jesus come to our town we would have repented."

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]===================================
Righteous, i've heard that word used before in this context. Here's the dictionary definition of 'righteous' -
======================================

If you are an atheist then you are hard pressed to explain by what moral law you discriminate between righteous and unrighteous.

You have to subcons ...[text shortened]... andom colliding of energy and matter with no purpose, goal, or plan.[/b]

If we take the musings out of your posts centered around the usual 'your an atheist, what do you know about morals?' canard we're not really left with much. In fact, you didn't even answer my questions.

So we'll try again.

Here's the definition of the word 'righteous'.

1. (of a person or conduct) Morally right or justifiable; virtuous.
2. Perfectly wonderful; fine and genuine.

Could you explain to me how condemning someone to death by stoning fits the above description?

Also, as i pointed out, the Iranian regime stones people to death for adultery (so incidentally does the Taliban), i'm not sure you would describe their actions as righteous (or maybe you do). So why is your God righteous in his sentencing of people to death by stoning, yet not the Iranians.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
If we take the musings out of your posts centered around the usual 'your an atheist, what do you know about morals?' canard we're not really left with much. In fact, you didn't even answer my questions.

So we'll try again.

Here's the definition of the word 'righteous'.

1. (of a person or conduct) Morally right or justifiable; virtuous.
2 ur God righteous in his sentencing of people to death by stoning, yet not the Iranians.

============================
If we take the musings out of your posts centered around the usual 'your an atheist, what do you know about morals?' canard we're not really left with much. In fact, you didn't even answer my questions.
==============================

When theists and atheists get on the subject of morality I find that usually the atheist will protest "I can be moral too, as much as anyone."

However, they often fail to understand the objection of the theist. We do not say that the atheist cannot be moral. He can. We say in his philosophy he has no solid basis for it. His morality is like the private personal choice of chocolate icecream over vanilla. It is pure whim.

The argument is not that athiests cannot be moral. It is that their own philosophy provides little to no objective foundation for such.

==================
So we'll try again.

Here's the definition of the word 'righteous'.

1. (of a person or conduct) Morally right or justifiable; virtuous.
2. Perfectly wonderful; fine and genuine.

Could you explain to me how condemning someone to death by stoning fits the above description?
================================

First you explain to me where I am as a Christian commanded to stone someone to death.

There are 27 books in the New Testament. Which provide instructions on stoning to death ?

I don't see why I should let you maneuver me into a position where I have to defend stoning as a present day social or religious practice.

You may say God under the Old Covenant had Achan and his family stoned in Joshua. So you must defend that. I would say that I really do not have to as a new covenant Christian disciple of Jesus.

The New Testament says that the following things make a person worthy of death:

" ... they did not approve of holding God in thier full knoweldge, God gave them up to a disapproved mind, to do the things which are not fitting, Being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, malice; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity; whisperers, slanderers, hateful to God, insolent, arrogant, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, sensless, faithfless, affectionless, merciless; who, though fully knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, not only do them, but also have fellow delight in those who practice them." (Rom. 1:29-32)

The Bible says that those who practice such things are worthy of death. It did not say you will be stoned or struck dead the instant everytime. But it does reveal the attitude of God. Those who practice such things and delight in those who do, are worthy of death.

We are worthy of execution. Some examples must have been made in the Old Testament for our education.

Achan disobeyed the mandate to devote everything in Jericho to distruction. Because of his coveting he stole a Babylonian garment and a golden wedge. And because of the withdrawal of God's blessing many men died in battle because of Achan's greed, disbeliefe, and disobedience.

Perhaps he thought what he did affected no one else. It was a hard lesson to learn that his disobedience caused many a fatherless child and widowed wife. The bringing inro the Isrealite camp of the cursed objects contributed to the loss of the Hebrews to defeat Ai.

God informs Joshua:

"Thus the children of Israel are not able to stand before their enemies; they turn their backs before their enemies, for they have become something devoted to destruction, And I will not be with you any more unless you destroy that which was devoted to destruction from among you.

... There is something devoted to destruction among you, O Israel; you will not be able to stand before your enemies until you remove that which was devoted to destruction from among you." (Joshua 7:12,13b)

Thirty six men were killed because of Achan's stealing of the accursed booty from Jericho. The hearts of the Hebrews melted because of the defeat and innocent people died.

For this reason Achan and his family were stoned. This action was not repeated every battle. But one occurence was there as a lesson. God's attitude had not changed. The disobedience of one in the army of Jehovah weakenedd the entire spiritual battle and the culprit was at one time made an example of.

"And Joshua said, Why have you troubled us ? Jehovah will trouble you this day. And all ISrael stoned him wuth stones; and they burned them with fire whe they had stoned them with stones.

Then they erected over him a great heap of stones, which is there to this day; and Jehovah turned from the fierceness of His anger. Therefore the name of that place is called the Valley of Achor to this day." (Joshua 7:25,26)

God made an example of Achan. But according to the NT we all deserve death in one way or another because of the things listed as iniquities against God.

The good news is that there is salvation in Jesus Christ. And though Achan may have been judged temporally by being stoned, he may nonetheless inherit eternal life in Jesus Christ.

Now you as an atheist want to pronounce that God was not right. But I don't know how you can even trust your own mind to know seeing that you regard it as the product of a random accident chemical collisions.

And any "good" you propose is nothing but that which only for the survival of the species. But really there is no objective and ultimate "good" or "evil" in your philosophy apart from personal whim, taste, convenience, or temporay advantage of species survival.

===============================
Also, as i pointed out, the Iranian regime stones people to death for adultery (so incidentally does the Taliban), i'm not sure you would describe their actions as righteous (or maybe you do). So why is your God righteous in his sentencing of people to death by stoning, yet not the Iranians.
===================================

And I pointed out that that is a matter you can take up with the Moslems. The Christian New Testament contains no instructions on stoning.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]============================
If we take the musings out of your posts centered around the usual 'your an atheist, what do you know about morals?' canard we're not really left with much. In fact, you didn't even answer my questions.
==============================

When theists and atheists get on the subject of morality I find that usually s. The Christian New Testament contains no instructions on stoning.[/b]

" ... they did not approve of holding God in thier full knowldge, God gave them up to a disapproved mind, to do the things which are not fitting, Being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, malice; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity; whisperers, slanderers, hateful to God, insolent, arrogant, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, sensless, faithless, affectionless, merciless; who, though fully knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, not only do them, but also have fellow delight i those who practice them." (Rom. 1:29-32)"

The Bible says that those who practice such things are worthy of death. It did not say you will be stoned or struck dead the instant everytime. But it does reveal the attitude of God. Those who practice such things and delight in those who do, are worthy of death.

I satisfy the part bolded in that excerpt...am I thus worthy of death? Would you nod your head and endorse any attempts to have me killed for this?? 😕

Originally posted by Agerg
[i]" ... they did not approve of holding God in thier full knowldge, God gave them up to a disapproved mind, to do the things which are not fitting, Being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, malice; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity; whisperers, slanderers, hateful to God, insolent, arrogant, boasters, inventors of evil thi hy of death? Would you nod your head and endorse any attempts to have me killed for this?? 😕

======================================
I satisfy the part bolded in that excerpt...am I thus worthy of death? Would you nod your head and endorse any attempts to have me killed for this??
========================================== [/i]

No. I would come next to you as a fellow sinner and tell you of the forgiveness and redemption there is in Jesus Christ.

I am much worse then you are. So the great salvation God has opened my heart to in Jesus, I would long that he would also open your heart to.

In the New Testament age we announce the good news of redemption from sins in Christ the Savior of the world.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]======================================
I satisfy the part bolded in that excerpt...am I thus worthy of death? Would you nod your head and endorse any attempts to have me killed for this??
========================================== [/i]

No. I would come next to you as a fellow sinner and tell you of the forgiveness and redemption there i ...[text shortened]... age we announce the good news of redemption from sins in Christ the Savior of the world.[/b]

and supposing I told you I find the Bible to be nonsense, and that Bible god is a contemptible, wholly human devised entity (whom I could not possibly bring myself to believe in), consistent with the mindsets of the barbaric, ancient human writers of these texts.

Would you hold me as worthy of death in ths case?