Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Um. You completely misunderstood the point of my post. I was refuting scoffers here who accuse God of being harsh for using the Israelites to destroy the Canaanites, and I was simply making the point that the Canaanites were exceeding wicked and needed to be destroyed.That thought never entered His mind for them to do such a thing.
http://biblehub.com/jeremiah/32-35.htm
Apparently you are not conversant with "free-will" and what that means. So you want to blame God for thoughts that never entered His mind? So the next terrorist act I can blame on you? God gave Satan reign to try to prove his point - that man does not need God. Man himself decided he did not need God as well when he chose to disobey. This is your time to prove yourself - what you do is totally up to you. If you choose to burn babies it is no one's fault but your own. Recompense will come due at the end.
The problem is you are thinking with such a limited mind - and have not the power to raise them from the dead to a new life - so of course you think what time they had was cut short. The only thing that was cut short was the time they would have to spend in this life while others choose to perpetuate misery on others of their own "free-will".
I suppose if it was you you would have made them robots with no "free-will"? Every choice you make is on you - and you alone. Stop trying to make God a escape goat and blame man's acts on someone else. Take responsibility for your own actions. When you can raise the dead back to eternal life - then come talk to me about right or wrong.
It's only by his grace and mercy that you do not this very moment die and descend into the eternal flames of torment, but God does not desire for you to go there, he takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but he is a righteous judge and must judge sin. But in his love and mercy he sent Christ to die for your sins. Those lies you tell, the lust in your heart towards those you are not married to, all those times you dishonored your parents, all the things you placed as being more important to you than God, your worship of pleasure, your selfishness. Let's get real, you are a sinner, "for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" and the "wages of sin is death" but "God commendeth his love towards us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" and "Now commandeth all men everywhere to repent because he hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness"
Repent and accept Jesus Christ as your saviour, or perish, the choice is your, and God is giving you grace and mercy and compassion right now by giving you a chance. if you perish and go to hell, it will be your own fault, your own choice, you will have no one to blame but yourself.
Take heed friends.
Um. You completely misunderstood the point of my post. I was refuting scoffers here who accuse God of being harsh for using the Israelites to destroy the Canaanites, and I was simply making the point that the Canaanites were exceeding wicked and needed to be destroyed.
No need to go into a long diatribe about free-will, as I am a believer in that doctrine already.
Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT... were the OT writers simply writing what they "thought" and the way they "felt" about God, and not in an actual words God actually said..
Well, my problem is I believe the scientific evidence which casts doubt on some of the Bible writers, BUT, I have too much personal experiencial evidence of a God and other spirits existing on another side beside this one...
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...periencing-part-of-a-pm-conversation.7843548/
My personal experiencial evidence stands on it's very own as enough proof for me, but have I encountered the same God (YHWH) spoke about in the OT, some OT acts and verses by God cast a shadow of a doubt on him being a or the God of Love...
Anyone help?
God Bless!
Um. You completely misunderstood the point of my post. I was refuting scoffers here who accuse God of being harsh for using the Israelites to destroy the Canaanites, and I was simply making the point that the Canaanites were exceeding wicked and needed to be destroyed.
I just apply Galileo's quip about the nature of the bible and be done with it.
Peace
2PhiloVoid
So genocide is okay under certain circumstances?
So the Hebrew people were told to take care of the problem by slaughtering all those babies?
Or stop putting words into his mouth?
The heliocentric (from Greek helios = sun) or Copernican system opposed the views of the astronomer-philosophers of the day, who earned their livelihood by teaching Aristotle and Ptolemy, and so were biased against change. They therefore either ignored, ridiculed, destroyed, or hostilely opposed Galileo’ ’s writings. Many Church leaders allowed themselves to be persuaded by the Aristotelians at the universities ( as many allow themselves to be persuaded on belief in evolution) that the geocentric (earth-centred) system was taught in Scripture and that Galileo was contradicting the Bible. They therefore bitterly opposed Galileo to the extent of forcing him on pain of death to repudiate his findings.
I stand corrected. Your next strawman will be to claim God commanded anything of the sort.
Or stop putting words into his mouth?
The heliocentric (from Greek helios = sun) or Copernican system opposed the views of the astronomer-philosophers of the day, who earned their livelihood by teaching Aristotle and Ptolemy, and so were biased against change. They therefore either ignored, ridiculed, destroyed, or hostilely opposed Galileo’ ’s writings. Many Church leaders allowed themselves to be persuaded by the Aristotelians at the universities ( as many allow themselves to be persuaded on belief in evolution) that the geocentric (earth-centred) system was taught in Scripture and that Galileo was contradicting the Bible. They therefore bitterly opposed Galileo to the extent of forcing him on pain of death to repudiate his findings.
This was because:
- The Church leaders had accepted as dogma the belief system of the pagan (i.e. non-Christian) philosophers, Aristotle and Ptolemy, which had become the worldview of the then scientific establishment. The result was that Church leaders were using the knowledge of the day to interpret Scripture, instead of using the Bible to evaluate the knowledge of the day.
- They clung to the ‘majority opinion’ about the universe and rejected the ‘minority view’ of Copernicus and Galileo, even after Galileo had presented indisputable evidence based on repeatable scientific observations that the majority was wrong. Just as they do today in astronomy.
- They picked out a few verses from the Bible which they thought said that the sun moved around the earth, but they failed to realize that Bible texts must be understood in terms of what the author intended to convey. Thus, when Moses wrote of the ‘risen’ sun (Genesis 19:23) and sun ‘set’ (Genesis 28:11), his purpose was not to formulate an astronomical dictum. Rather he, by God’s spirit, was using the language of appearance so that his readers would easily understand what time of day he was talking about.3 And it is perfectly valid in physics to describe motion relative to the most convenient reference frame, which in this case is the earth. We still say the sun sets and rises - even if we understand this is not a scientific accurate description.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999Sc&Ed...8..151C
Or stop ignoring the observational evidence?
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...s-especially-in-the-ot.7919979/#post-68913538
It is true that Genesis does not speak of the Ptolemaic system. It assumes the world is flat.
Say who, you? People 1000's of years ago with pre-conceived ideas?
Hi Justatruthseeker,
I'm sorry, but I'm not clear here as to whether you are supporting what I said or are attempting to contend with it.
What did you understand me to have said or implied?
Thanks,
2PhiloVoid
Says, the Bible. Genesis describes firmaments (pillars) upholding the heavens.
https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm
I thought I was quite clear.
The Church leaders had accepted as dogma the belief system of the pagan (i.e. non-Christian) philosophers, Aristotle and Ptolemy, which had become the worldview of the then scientific establishment. The result was that Church leaders were using the knowledge of the day to interpret Scripture, instead of using the Bible to evaluate the knowledge of the day.
They simply took the word of the scientific leaders of the day, who were the scientific leaders at that time.
They clung to the ‘majority opinion’ about the universe and rejected the ‘minority view’ of Copernicus and Galileo, even after Galileo had presented indisputable evidence based on repeatable scientific observations that the majority was wrong. Just as they do today in astronomy. Just as they do in evolution. believing that the "majority" is always correct.
They picked out a few verses from the Bible which they thought said that the sun moved around the earth, but they failed to realize that Bible texts must be understood in terms of what the author intended to convey. Thus, when Moses wrote of the ‘risen’ sun (Genesis 19:23) and sun ‘set’ (Genesis 28:11), his purpose was not to formulate an astronomical dictum. Rather he, by God’s spirit, was using the language of appearance so that his readers would easily understand what time of day he was talking about. And it is perfectly valid in physics to describe motion relative to the most convenient reference frame, which in this case is the earth. We still say the sun sets and rises - even if we understand this is not a scientifically accurate description of what is occurring.
They hand-picked verses that seemed to support their view, in-line with the major scientific beliefs at the time, taking their meanings out of context that the versus were meant to convey. Their beliefs were no different than the belief of the majority of science of the time.
I agree and disagree. I agree they were wrong - but they were simply backing the "majority" belief of the scientific community at the time. People that made their living in the universities teaching the incorrect scientific views of Aristotle and Ptolemy. They abandoned the scriptures for pagan beliefs - and so of course ended up on the wrong side in the scientific battle that took place. The scientific community which supported the church in their wrong persecution of Galileo.
Poor Galileo was simply the "minority" voice, ignored by the very same people that claimed they followed science - the universities and teaching centers of the time. No different than today in astronomy or evolution.
Just as I no more blame Christian's or non-Christian's for believing that the scientific majority today is correct when it comes to astronomy and evolution. I've heard this logical fallacy argument so many times - but the majority believes...... Well, they simply believed the "majority", so to try to blame only the Church is another argument of logical fallacy.
I only blame them when they refuse to even consider the "minority" view - just as the church and the learning centers of the time did then. But the "majority" of astronomers believe - so the "minority" is ignored. The "majority" of biologists believe - so the "minority" is ignored. So in our time and age of reason - this is different how????
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
"Galileo's contributions caused difficulties for theologians and natural philosophers of the time, as they contradicted scientific and philosophical ideas based on those of Aristotle and Ptolemy and closely associated with the Catholic Church. In particular, Galileo's observations of the phases of Venus, which showed it to circle the sun, and the observation of moons orbiting Jupiter, contradicted the geocentric model of Ptolemy and supported the Copernican model advanced by Galileo."
"Jesuit astronomers, experts both in Church teachings, science, and in natural philosophy, were at first skeptical and hostile to the new ideas; however, within a year or two the availability of good telescopes enabled them to repeat the observations. In 1611, Galileo visited the Collegium Romanum in Rome, where the Jesuit astronomers by that time had repeated his observations. Christoph Grienberger, one of the Jesuit scholars on the faculty, sympathized with Galileo’s theories, but was asked to defend the Aristotelian viewpoint by Claudio Acquaviva, the Father General of the Jesuits. Not all of Galileo's claims were completely accepted: Christopher Clavius, the most distinguished astronomer of his age, never was reconciled to the idea of mountains on the Moon, and outside the collegium many still disputed the reality of the observations. In a letter to Kepler of August 1610, Galileo complained that some of the philosophers who opposed his discoveries had refused even to look through a telescope: My dear Kepler, I wish that we might laugh at the remarkable stupidity of the common herd. What do you have to say about the principal philosophers of this academy who are filled with the stubbornness of an asp and do not want to look at either the planets, the moon or the telescope, even though I have freely and deliberately offered them the opportunity a thousand times? Truly, just as the asp stops its ears, so do these philosophers shut their eyes to the light of truth."
It was the philosophers that refused to look - the claimed leaders of science. The Jesuit priest accepted his ideas after repeating the observations themselves, but the head of them was stuck in his Fairie Dust system of beliefs and so ordered them to oppose him. They wrongly did so, as did the philosophers who would not even look.
"At this time, Galileo also engaged in a dispute over the reasons that objects float or sink in water, siding with Archimedes against Aristotle. The debate was unfriendly, and Galileo's blunt and sometimes sarcastic style, though not extraordinary in academic debates of the time, made him enemies."
I sympathize so well with him, being my style is the same.
"During this controversy one of Galileo's friends, the painter, Lodovico Cardi da Cigoli, informed him that a group of malicious opponents, which Cigoli subsequently referred to derisively as "the Pigeon league," was plotting to cause him trouble over the motion of the earth, or anything else that would serve the purpose. According to Cigoli, one of the plotters had asked a priest to denounce Galileo's views from the pulpit, but the latter had refused. Nevertheless, three years later another priest, Tommaso Caccini, did in fact do precisely that, as described below."
It wasn't the Church that started the trouble - but the very ones that claimed to follow science - they simply got the Church to agree with them and do their dirty work for them.
Ummm....I too was sympathizing with Galileo. I could have saved you the time it took for you to set all of this out.
2PhiloVoid
But I'm not blaming only the Church like quite a few on here would assume you were - so you don't mind me pointing out their error before they make it do you? I prefer to forestall strawmen arguments so I need not have to go to the trouble of answering what would sooner or later have been the strawman of the day.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?