James: "The Effectual, Fervent Prayer of the Righteous Man..."

[Nihilist Virus]

Really? No Christians think that we only receive salvation by appropriately responding to God within the context of His revelation about Jesus that is found in Scripture? That's a new one to me!

It's just me? Really? Well, let's test that theory shall we?

HERE YE, HERE YE! ALL YOU CHRISTIANS WHO DON'T THINK THAT WE NEED TO FIND OUR SALVATION IN CHRIST PER THE CONTEXTS GIVEN IN SCRIPTURE, and who don't think we need to know that Jesus was Jewish......................PLEASE SHOW UP AND SOUND OFF and put me in my place with a word of correction!

(Or, if you think that Jesus' being Jewish is a central idea of our faith, please leave a little green checkmark on this post...Thank you!)

... oh yes! It's always good to have a laugh together now and then, isn't it NV, especially when we both realize that an important survey is being taken which isn't following a scientifically sound protocol in any way, shape, or form?

I've seen you refer to the rules and guidelines of this forum several times, and now here you are showing you hadn't bothered to read them! Christians can't argue with Christians on here. Also I love how you twist my position, like always. As if I said to ignore context. Keep up the great work!

 

[Par5]

...I'm having a difficulty with the part that where (again, contextually speaking as well as existentially speaking) that God shows up and commands what He commands for very specific reasons. Oh, did I say that He did so for very specific reason that provide context to the situations we find in the Old Testament? Yes, for specific reasons that you've failed to grasp, obviously!

...you haven't established your own point of view by which to criticize mine, and you do have to go *** beyond *** just the mere pretense of being able to provide supposed self-evidence as you claim. No one, not even you, gets a free lunch on this; you're axioms aren't assumed.

Yes, corrupt and evil cultures deserve to be destroyed if God so decrees it...and sometimes in the Bible, that meant that reprobate cultures had to go, in full, or nearly so.

Or, are you one of those who would rather protect the cultures and sub-cultures, or even lives, of unrepentant, reprobate pornographers, pimps, drug lords, sex traffickers, and or even genocidal, nazi type warlords?

Yes, it must have been truly shocking to have witnessed all those children and infants looking at porn and snorting coke while awaiting the next consignment of sex slaves to arrive to satisfy their lustful desires. Then there's the bestiality, the filthy little reprobates. You're right, kill em all!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes, it must have been truly shocking to have witnessed all those children and infants looking at porn and snorting coke while awaiting the next consignment of sex slaves to arrive to satisfy their lustful desires. Then there's the bestiality, the filthy little reprobates. You're right, kill em all!

And if you were God, what would you have told the Israelites to do when encountering the Canaanites?

 

[Oncedeceived]

You didn't answer the question. you just asked another question? So, do you think the killing of Canaanite women and children was justified?

I need to ask mine to answer yours. Would you mind?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I have my opinion regarding those things, but you mentioning those things is simply an exercise in deflection. Your, ah but what about this and what about that doesn't answer the question of whether you consider the slaughter of the Canaanites, including the women and children, to be morally wrong. Well, do you?

Those questions are important to my answer. Its not deflection at all.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I don't understand what this question is referring to from my quote.

I didn't understand what was close?

You aren't commenting on the passage so it's not clear to me you've even looked at it yet. Also I'm not going to bother with an explanation until you give me a list of Biblical translations you accept. I've shown this to a ton of Christians only to see them disavow every translation that I use and insist upon using the translation for which this passage is least clear.

I draw on the original Hebrew. The original Hebrew is the best way to determine how a translation is made.

1. I never said I was pro choice. We just had a dialogue about that.

I must have missed it.

2. If I was pro choice I'd obviously be opposed to the ritual described in the passage. You seem to be equating abortion with choice and I'm not sure why. The passage details how a woman is forced to have an abortion. That's not what pro choice advocates. Choice is a key part of pro choice.

No, it doesn't say anything about an abortion. In context it is a ritual determining guilt of a woman who has not been witnessed to having a sexual affair with someone other than her husband. Pro Choice is still an abortion. It still kills babies. We as humans do not have the right to take life unless our own lives are at risk or those of our loved ones.

I'm not advocating the murder of anyone. I'm saying that a genuine conclusion based on Christian assumptions is that babies should be killed.

Then you are under the wrong conclusion.

1. When babies die they go straight to heaven

I believe that is true.

2. When babies grow up there is a chance they will turn away from God and go to hell

I believe that is true.

3. The only way to ensure that a person goes to heaven is to kill them before they grow up

Why? Do you not feel they should have a right to decide for themselves?

4. It is better for a person to go to heaven than for them to go to hell

I believe so.

5. It is better for people if you kill them while they are a baby

I don't agree.

Simple stuff. The problem lies with the initial assumptions, that is, the core doctrine of Christianity.

No, the problem lies with your interpretation of the doctrine of Christianity.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I think you're just inventing that to try to win this discussion. I've never heard of this being a salvation issue, and I seriously doubt you have either.

We need to know who Jesus was to accept who He is and where He came from.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I didn't understand what was close?



I draw on the original Hebrew. The original Hebrew is the best way to determine how a translation is made.



I must have missed it.

No, it doesn't say anything about an abortion. In context it is a ritual determining guilt of a woman who has not been witnessed to having a sexual affair with someone other than her husband.

It doesn't just determine guilt. It also administers punishment in the form of rendering her barren, which is a violation of her choice. So not only did you assume that I was pro choice despite having talked about it with me just a few posts back, you then acted like a pro choice person should have no problem with a situation in which a woman loses her "right" to choose. So yeah, clearly you aren't paying attention.

As for the abortion in the passage, just do the math. Adultery sometimes results in pregnancy. Forcing a pregnant woman to become barren via some magical potion means her pregnancy will be terminated.

It's called a miscarriage when the fetus dies naturally. It's called an abortion when the fetus is intentionally killed.

Pro Choice is still an abortion.

There are a lot of pro choice women who have never had an abortion and never will.

It still kills babies. We as humans do not have the right to take life unless our own lives are at risk or those of our loved ones.

Yes, abortion kills babies. As mammals we shouldn't be doing that. It's wrong.

Then you are under the wrong conclusion.

I believe that is true.

I believe that is true.

Why? Do you not feel they should have a right to decide for themselves?

Not relevant. Please follow the argument.

Yes, they should have the right to choose (wink, wink) for themselves. But that's not the argument. The argument is not about what's right. It's about what is best for the person.

I believe so.

I don't agree.

You had absolutely no relevant objection to any premise in my argument, and you did not point out any errors in logic. So you are totally irrational in rejecting the conclusion.

No, the problem lies with your interpretation of the doctrine of Christianity.

Check your logic.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

We need to know who Jesus was to accept who He is and where He came from.

Are you actually paying attention to this other debate over here or are you just siding with the Christian against the atheist?

 

[Oncedeceived]

It doesn't just determine guilt. It also administers punishment in the form of rendering her barren, which is a violation of her choice. So not only did you assume that I was pro choice despite having talked about it with me just a few posts back, you then acted like a pro choice person should have no problem with a situation in which a woman loses her "right" to choose. So yeah, clearly you aren't paying attention.

It is to determine guilt. The consequences of such would be death, but this ritual prevents a women's death for her punishment to rendering her barren for her infidelity. Barren is not an abortion, it is rendering her from having offspring due to her actions. That action happens only if she is found guilty by God which actually knows whether or not she has been unfaithful.

As for the abortion in the passage, just do the math. Adultery sometimes results in pregnancy. Forcing a pregnant woman to become barren via some magical potion means her pregnancy will be terminated.

There are no math equations in the verses. Yes, adultery sometimes results in pregnancy but this isn't about that, it is about guilt not being able to be proven other than by God and the ritual to demonstrate it. It means that God (the one who knows whether or not she has been unfaithful) will provide the consequence which is infertility if she is guilty and nothing will happen to her if she is not, including a pregnancy from her husband.

It's called a miscarriage when the fetus dies naturally. It's called an abortion when the fetus is intentionally killed.

Yes, but that is not what this verse is about. It is about guilt of being unfaithful or innocence of that.

There are a lot of pro choice women who have never had an abortion and never will.

Your point?

Yes, abortion kills babies. As mammals we shouldn't be doing that. It's wrong.

I agree.

Not relevant. Please follow the argument.

Yes, they should have the right to choose (wink, wink) for themselves. But that's not the argument. The argument is not about what's right. It's about what is best for the person.

The whole concept of Christianity is about choice. We can't decide what is best for a person. Only God has that authority in the case of life and death.

You had absolutely no relevant objection to any premise in my argument, and you did not point out any errors in logic. So you are totally irrational in rejecting the conclusion.

My objection is to the misunderstanding of Christian theology on your part.

Check your logic.

Logical arguments can be wrong especially if they are based on misunderstandings of the context and subject matter of the premises.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Are you actually paying attention to this other debate over here or are you just siding with the Christian against the atheist?

What? What do you mean?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

It is to determine guilt. The consequences of such would be death, but this ritual prevents a women's death for her punishment to rendering her barren for her infidelity. Barren is not an abortion, it is rendering her from having offspring due to her actions. That action happens only if she is found guilty by God which actually knows whether or not she has been unfaithful.

Please explain what would happen if a pregnant woman is made barren by this method.

There are no math equations in the verses. Yes, adultery sometimes results in pregnancy but this isn't about that, it is about guilt not being able to be proven other than by God and the ritual to demonstrate it. It means that God (the one who knows whether or not she has been unfaithful) will provide the consequence which is infertility if she is guilty and nothing will happen to her if she is not, including a pregnancy from her husband.

Again, please explain what would happen if the woman is pregnant.

Yes, but that is not what this verse is about. It is about guilt of being unfaithful or innocence of that.

Right. This is not directly addressed. It is an emergent detail, like the Trinity or the rapture: not mentioned directly, but clearly deduced by what is being said.

So please explain what happens if the woman is pregnant.

Your point?

Again, the point is that choice and abortion are not the same thing.

I agree.




The whole concept of Christianity is about choice. We can't decide what is best for a person. Only God has that authority in the case of life and death.

I don't care. That's not relevant to the argument.

For example, the theory of evolution absolutely has nothing to do with morality. However, Christians make the argument that the theory of evolution bring correct has some negative impact on morality itself. Should I just utterly ignore such arguments or should I take the time to read what's being said? What should you do here?

My objection is to the misunderstanding of Christian theology on your part.

You are unable to make an objection without bringing up irrelevant details.

Logical arguments can be wrong especially if they are based on misunderstandings of the context and subject matter of the premises.

You have to show that a premise is false or a logical fallacy is present.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Please explain what would happen if a pregnant woman is made barren by this method.

Please explain how a woman that is not guilty of adultery would have nothing happen.

Again, please explain what would happen if the woman is pregnant.

If the woman is pregnant and didn't commit adultery nothing would happen, if she is guilty she becomes barren, there is nothing that gives us any information on whether or not a pregnancy already intact would be terminated...who would know but God?

Right. This is not directly addressed. It is an emergent detail, like the Trinity or the rapture: not mentioned directly, but clearly deduced by what is being said.

So please explain what happens if the woman is pregnant.

Answered above.

Again, the point is that choice and abortion are not the same thing.

What? There is a choice of abortion, so it is the same thing.

I don't care. That's not relevant to the argument.

No, I don't. A logical argument can still be wrong.

For example, the theory of evolution absolutely has nothing to do with morality. However, Christians make the argument that the theory of evolution bring correct has some negative impact on morality itself. Should I just utterly ignore such arguments or should I take the time to read what's being said? What should you do here?

How do you feel when someone uses the argument against evolution that there are still monkeys that exist today?

You are unable to make an objection without bringing up irrelevant details.

That is untrue.






You have to show that a premise is false or a logical fallacy is present.[/QUOTE]Same as saying monkeys still exist.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

If the woman is pregnant and didn't commit adultery nothing would happen, if she is guilty she becomes barren, there is nothing that gives us any information on whether or not a pregnancy already intact would be terminated...who would know but God?

A direct dodge of the question. Yeah, let's just pretend to not know what happens to a pregnant woman's fetus if the mother is cursed to never give birth again.

Let me give you some parting advice. Clearly you're on these forums to sharpen your apologetics skills. The goal of apologetics is to relay the gospel to those who have intellectual objections. So let me make this clear: what you are doing will NEVER work. NEVER. Pretending to not understand the obvious purely because it is devastating to your case will NEVER win anyone over. You're much better off being honest and admitting the shortcomings.

I see no reason to engage you on anything ever again. But feel free to let me know if taking my advice gives you better success with others.

 

[Par5]

Those questions are important to my answer. Its not deflection at all.

OK, you asked if there was evil in the world. There is plenty in the world that is not good, plenty that is not right, but there is also plenty in the world that is good and is right. That's not to say that we shouldn't try to tip the balance strongly in favour of what is good and what is right.

 

[Par5]

And if you were God, what would you have told the Israelites to do when encountering the Canaanites?

If I were god? That's a silly thing to say. I can't pretend to know what something I don't believe exists would do.
If the bible story of the extermination of the Canaanites actually happened then it happened as a result of what men did, nothing to do with any god.
If you are asking what I would do, I simply don't know. What could I do? There is one thing though I know I wouldn't do, and that is set about murdering children.

 

[Petros2015]

How is it possible for the creature to be more compassionate than his creator? Christians don't seem to want to wrestle with this question. They would rather hand-wave it away.

The Creature is the vehicle for the expression of the Creator's compassion, if it wants to be, as much as it wants to be.

If it doesn't, if it adopts a self-centered attitude and plays the role of God itself and places itself above it's fellows and moral law... things can get real, real ugly and extremely dangerous.

I have a friend who is a recovering heroin addict. When she was younger, since the age of 10 she was horrifically abused by her father. One time, she started going to church, and her father, seeing that, gave her a bible, and then he attacked her again and when he was finished said 'where is your God now?'

I've thought a lot about that question. The answer I finally came up with was, "not in her father".

We know each other through a string of events that began with God revealing to me that I was an alcoholic and sobering me up. I helped to get her into rehab. I still have that bible, that her father gave her, which I took from her, to remind me of what evil can come in the absence of God. Rae is my favorite miracle.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If I were god? That's a silly thing to say. I can't pretend to know what something I don't believe exists would do.
If the bible story of the extermination of the Canaanites actually happened then it happened as a result of what men did, nothing to do with any god.
If you are asking what I would do, I simply don't know. What could I do? There is one thing though I know I wouldn't do, and that is set about murdering children.

...but you would still kill the parents in an act of war, if needed? Or am I just surmising something that would be way off the radar for a fellow, generally inclined pacifist? [Yes, I said "fellow," because I too am generally inclined toward pacifism, and it should be obvious to anyone here that I'm not "condoning" what God has commanded; rather I see the unfortunate utility of it, much in the same way that the Allies saw the bombing of Dresden...]

Then too, it's not REALLY AS IF the Canaanites were just poor Mexican neighbors at the border who were being intruded in upon. No rather, it's more like the Israelites were in the position of the Mexican neighbors south of the U.S. border, trying to get into the U.S., and the Canaanites were in the place of the comfortable Americans in the U.S. This means that the homeless and wandering Israelites were outgunned, under-powered, and essentially not in any actual state of social or tactical empowerment by which they could feasibly take on the strength (or the nasty cultural influences) of the Canaanites. But 'somehow', they did.

So, regardless of how we might contemplate about what we think of as being the situation between Israel and the Canaanites, I'd say that our Modern mindset can't and often won't really grasp what was going on at the time in the O.T............and these are some of the contexts I keep referring to and to which no one wants to consider (or hear), in addition to the fact that most Canaanites, by way of their own depraved culture, were more often than not highly immoral and violent shmucks, and this is what they usually perpetuated generation after generation, making sure that their children grew up following suite and becoming, likewise, nasty, violent Canaanites themselves.

And in the midst of the above, God stepped in on behalf of Israel......................!

 

[Oncedeceived]

A direct dodge of the question. Yeah, let's just pretend to not know what happens to a pregnant woman's fetus if the mother is cursed to never give birth again.

Let me give you some parting advice. Clearly you're on these forums to sharpen your apologetics skills. The goal of apologetics is to relay the gospel to those who have intellectual objections. So let me make this clear: what you are doing will NEVER work. NEVER. Pretending to not understand the obvious purely because it is devastating to your case will NEVER win anyone over. You're much better off being honest and admitting the shortcomings.

I see no reason to engage you on anything ever again. But feel free to let me know if taking my advice gives you better success with others.

You don't know if the woman would be pregnant. This is a ritual of when a husband "believes" the woman "may" have been unfaithful but there are no witnesses, no one to accuse her other than a JEALOUS husband..i.e. jealousy ritual. This means that the woman can't be put to death because there is no one other than God who knows if she is guilty or not. IF you don't believe in God, I find it strange that you would think this could do anything other than maybe make someone a little sick from eating or drinking dirt. But whatever floats your boat.

 

[Oncedeceived]

...but you would still kill the parents in an act of war, if needed? Or am I just surmising something that would be way off the radar for a fellow, generally inclined pacifist? [Yes, I said "fellow," because I too am generally inclined toward pacifism, and it should be obvious to anyone here that I'm not "condoning" what God has commanded; rather I see the unfortunate utility of it, much in the same way that the Allies saw the bombing of Dresden...]

Then too, it's not REALLY AS IF the Canaanites were just poor Mexican neighbors at the border who were being intruded in upon. No rather, it's more like the Israelites were in the position of the Mexican neighbors south of the U.S. border, trying to get into the U.S., and the Canaanites were in the place of the comfortable Americans in the U.S. This means that the homeless and wandering Israelites were outgunned, under-powered, and essentially not in any actual state of social or tactical empowerment by which they could feasibly take on the strength (or the nasty cultural influences) of the Canaanites. But 'somehow', they did.

So, regardless of how we might contemplate about what we think of as being the situation between Israel and the Canaanites, I'd say that our Modern mindset can't and often won't really grasp what was going on at the time in the O.T............and these are some of the contexts I keep referring to and to which no one wants to consider (or hear), in addition to the fact that most Canaanites, by way of their own depraved culture, were more often than not highly immoral and violent shmucks, and this is what they usually perpetuated generation after generation, making sure that their children grew up following suite and becoming, likewise, nasty, violent Canaanites themselves.

And in the midst of the above, God stepped in on behalf of Israel......................!

Exactly. No one ever wants to look at their behavior of killing the elderly and young of Israel. I always wonder why they get a free pass for their killing of the most vulnerable of the people of Israel generation after generation.