Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation?

[MoonLancer]

questions are asked in the form of question.

*edit*

 

[theFijian]

bring back GA

 

[AV1611VET]

And the "cure" to this dilemma is science, right?

Well, according to Revelation, science is going to get its chance, albeit briefly; with the world's greatest secular scientist of all time leading a one-world government.

He will even demonstrate abiogenesis.

So start thinking about either your right hands or your foreheads because he's on his way.

 

[3sigma]

I did not evade the question.

Denying reality seems to have become second nature to you. I guess that’s to be expected.

 

[caustic]

Considering your insistence in taking Genesis literally you seem to be making some astoundingly far-fetched interpretations when it comes to Revelation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Considering your insistence in taking Genesis literally you seem to be making some astoundingly far-fetched interpretations when it comes to Revelation.

In other words, you have no idea what I said, right?

 

[CoderHead]

What do you mean "what was I asking"? You took the time to call me ignorant and bigoted in your post #375. Why can't you also take the time to address my reply to your pejorative labeling in my post #377?

I was addressing your projection of religious zealotry onto Muslims when the question was solely about Christians and their propensity to violence in the name of God. Do Muslim extremists commit violent acts because the Koran commands them to? Yes. Now that we have that out of the way, can we move on?

Whether or not the Bible explicitly commands Christians to commit violent acts is irrelevant, since Christians regularly and consistently act on their interpretation of the Bible and what they perceive God to be telling them. Could a good Christian man drag a homosexual or negro behind a truck or severely beat them, all the while believing it to be commanded and even condoned by God because of words in the Bible? I think it's been demonstrated in the past that, yes, they could.

So, the question that was asked and that you keep side-stepping is this: would you kill people if your God commanded you to?

 

[Tzaousios]

Denying reality seems to have become second nature to you. I guess that’s to be expected.

Have you run out of steam or something? There was more to my reply than whatever you are addressing here.

 

[Tzaousios]

I was addressing your projection of religious zealotry onto Muslims when the question was solely about Christians and their propensity to violence in the name of God.

No, the specific "question" that 3sigma posed to me was about an ambiguous group of religious zealots killing in the name of their god. Plus, I did not "project" religious zealotry onto Muslims. Muslims, by definition, are commanded to carry out these acts against non-Muslims. Also, I mentioned other cults who do the same thing out of some self-defined prerogative to perpetrate violence on non-believers.

Do Muslim extremists commit violent acts because the Koran commands them to? Yes.

Thanks for your reluctant recognition of this fact. The next step is for you to recognize that Christians are not commanded to do the same thing and if they do indulge in these actions are condemned by the the very words of Christ whom they claim to serve.

Whether or not the Bible explicitly commands Christians to commit violent acts is irrelevant, since Christians regularly and consistently act on their interpretation of the Bible and what they perceive God to be telling them.

No, it absolutely is NOT irrelavent and no amount of arrogant dismissal or obfuscation of it will marginalize the fact that Christians are not commanded to commit violent acts. No academic interpretation or exegesis is needed for the universal commandment which Christ issued and the apostle Paul affirmed.

Could a good Christian man drag a homosexual or negro behind a truck or severely beat them, all the while believing it to be commanded and even condoned by God because of words in the Bible? I think it's been demonstrated in the past that, yes, they could.

Neither is this man "Christian" or "good" that you describe, whether he believes himself to be or not. The plain words of Christ condemn actions of this sort and he is guilty of contravening them just like anyone else who indulges in unrepentant sin. The binding truth of the command of Christ is not relativized by whether or not a person who calls themself a Christian commits acts of violence or not.

So, the question that was asked and that you keep side-stepping is this: would you kill people if your God commanded you to?

The premise of the question is false because God does not command Christians to kill people. If they do kill people they are condemned by the word of Christ as is anyone else who sins.

 

[CoderHead]

Thanks for your reluctant recognition of this fact.

What was reluctant about it? I don't have any more love for Islam than I do for Christianity.

The next step is for you to recognize that Christians are not commanded to do the same thing and if they do indulge in these actions are condemned by the the very words of Christ whom they claim to serve.

Obviously, the New Testament (but not the Old Testament) varies from the Koran in that there are no imperatives to go to war.

My confusion stems from the duality of OT/NT God combined with the statements: "He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man, that he should change his mind. (1 Sam 15:29)" and "I the Lord do not change. (Mal 3:6)" The OT God commanded the deaths of countless people, was intimately and physically involved in their lives, and ruled with an iron fist. The NT God took a back seat, sent an intermediary, taught us to love everyone and forgive unconditionally. How does God undergo a change that extensive, but not change?

And if He doesn't change, and He was so bloodthirsty in the OT, then why wouldn't He still command His followers to kill?

 

[3sigma]

Have you run out of steam or something? There was more to my reply than whatever you are addressing here.

I’m sick and tired of asking you questions only to have you evade nearly every single one. The rest of your reply was just more evasion of questions and I see that you evade the questions of others with similar consistency. It is pointless continuing any conversation with someone who behaves so evasively.

 

[Doveaman]

But what about peanut butter? What good is Law or grace IF YOU DON'T HAVE PEANUT BUTTER?!?!

A mixture of VINEGAR and HONEY is used instead of PEANUT BUTTER.

 

[BananaSlug]

What was reluctant about it? I don't have any more love for Islam than I do for Christianity.


Obviously, the New Testament (but not the Old Testament) varies from the Koran in that there are no imperatives to go to war.

My confusion stems from the duality of OT/NT God combined with the statements: "He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man, that he should change his mind. (1 Sam 15:29)" and "I the Lord do not change. (Mal 3:6)" The OT God commanded the deaths of countless people, was intimately and physically involved in their lives, and ruled with an iron fist. The NT God took a back seat, sent an intermediary, taught us to love everyone and forgive unconditionally. How does God undergo a change that extensive, but not change?

And if He doesn't change, and He was so bloodthirsty in the OT, then why wouldn't He still command His followers to kill?

Good post, I just hate that stuff like this either ends up as "/thread" or "thread closed". You got rep!

 

[Doveaman]

You are evading the question. The Bible claims that your God has already slaughtered people itself and commanded its followers to do the same—many times—unless, perhaps, you think the stories in the Bible are untrue.

The way you use the term “slaughter” creates a picture of an imaginary god, and not of the Christian God.

The way I see it, the Christian God gave life to all people for a specific purpose and He has every right to take it back if we are not using that life for that purpose. He had every right to take it back in the pass, and He has every right to take it back today. God has every right to take what is His and do with it as He pleases. He can give life and He can take life, because all life is His.

"The earth is the LORD's, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it" - Ps 24:1.

Fortunately for us today He is being merciful and patient with us, "not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance" so that He wouldn't have to take back the life He gave us - 2 Peter 3:9.

There is plenty of precedent to show that this is exactly what your God tells its followers to do so the questions do apply specifically to Christians. Would you kill people if your God told you to do it?

If God told me to do this it would contradict what He already told me to do (turn the other cheek), so I would have great difficulty believing it was God who told me, since He would be contradicting Himself.

 

[3sigma]

The way you use of the term “slaughter” creates a picture of an imaginary god, and not of the Christian God.

What’s the difference?

The Bible claims your God killed every human being on the entire planet except for one family. That qualifies as a slaughter. The Bible claims your God killed everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah. That qualifies as a slaughter. The Bible claims your God killed every first-born child in Egypt. That qualifies as a slaughter. The Bible is talking about the Christian God, isn’t it?

If God told me to do this it would contradict what He already told me to do (turn the other cheek), so I would have great difficulty believing it was God who told me, since He would be contradicting Himself.

And so the evasions continue. Would you kill people if your God told you to do it? You say it has told you to turn the other cheek. Did it whisper that into your head or are you just going by what you’ve read in the Bible? The Bible also tells you that your God commands its followers to kill people and I’ve given you examples of that so your God is already contradicting itself. Please stop making up excuses to evade the questions and answer them. Would you kill people if your God told you to do it?

 

[Doveaman]

My confusion stems from the duality of OT/NT God combined with the statements: "He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man, that he should change his mind. (1 Sam 15:29)" and "I the Lord do not change. (Mal 3:6)" The OT God commanded the deaths of countless people, was intimately and physically involved in their lives, and ruled with an iron fist. The NT God took a back seat, sent an intermediary, taught us to love everyone and forgive unconditionally. How does God undergo a change that extensive, but not change?

God is a God of Justice and a God of Mercy. He doesn't change. Justice and Mercy are two eternal qualities of the Unchanging God.

God "will give to each person according to what he has done." To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life (Mercy) - Rom 2:6-7.

But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger, trouble and distress, for every human being who does evil (Justice) - Rom 2:8-9.

 

[CoderHead]

God is a God of Justice and a God of Mercy. He doesn't change. Justice and Mercy are two eternal qualities of the Unchanging God.

How does that speak to the complete 180 God did between the OT and NT? How does that support His change from "Thou shalt surely die" to "But have everlasting life?" It's like someone who wants cold cereal for lunch but then has an epiphany on the toilet and ends up making grilled cheese. It's most certainly a change, and Justice and Mercy don't explain it.

 

[AV1611VET]

How does that speak to the complete 180 God did between the OT and NT?

The Old Testament shows God in operation for a period of 4004 years.

We see Him doing things in wartime, peacetime, and every time in between.

We see how He reacts to everything from rebellion to attempted genocide on His chosen people to idolatry.

By contrast, the New Testament shows God operating within a period of some 64 years, during a time of peace.

Josh McDowell, however, points out that God in the New Testament has the harsher condemnation on mankind, than in the Old Testament, assuring him that Hell awaits the nonbeliever.

And the book of Revelation makes the Old Testament look like Mayberry, RFD.

 

[Doveaman]

What’s the difference?

Huge difference.

The difference is between your meaning and the actual meaning.

The Bible claims your God killed every human being on the entire planet except for one family. That qualifies as a slaughter.

I suppose.

The Bible claims your God killed everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah. That qualifies as a slaughter.

I suppose.

The Bible claims your God killed every first-born child in Egypt. That qualifies as a slaughter.

I suppose.

The Bible is talking about the Christian God, isn’t it?

Yes, but you are not.

There is the actual meaning of the term "slaughter", and then there is the meaning you are trying to cause it to mean.

And so the evasions continue. Would you kill people if your God told you to do it?

No.

You say it has told you to turn the other cheek. Did it whisper that into your head or are you just going by what you’ve read in the Bible?

Both.

The Bible also tells you that your God commands its followers to kill people and I’ve given you examples of that so your God is already contradicting itself.

This "contradicting" god you are referring to is the imaginary god I told you about earlier, the one you are creating in your own head.

Please stop making up excuses to evade the questions and answer them. Would you kill people if your God told you to do it?

I said NO.

 

[Nathan Poe]

There is the actual meaning of the term "slaughter", and then there is the meaning you are trying to cause it to mean.

Oh, this should be fun -- what, pray tell, is the "actual meaning of 'slaughter'"?