ordinarily i would post this topic in the "bible research" forum, but i found the following on the "friends" forum, in the "tree of what" thread, so i will leave it here.. achristian explains,.
[when] free people have a knowledge of evil they always, at least briefly, consider doing evil.
and, even having evil thoughts for a brief fleeting moment makes people less righteous than god.
I guess you must realize you lost that debate because now you want to start discussing an entirely different subject.
Guess again; I've been waiting for you to respond to my last post on that debate. I assumed that you once again bailed out of it.
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
ordinarily i would post this topic in the "bible research" forum, but i found the following on the "friends" forum, in the "tree of what" thread, so i will leave it here.. achristian explains,.
[when] free people have a knowledge of evil they always, at least briefly, consider doing evil.
and, even having evil thoughts for a brief fleeting moment makes people less righteous than god.
It seems quite clear to me that your purpose in now bringing up these Old Testament passages is simply to attack the Bible. I've told you before I don't enter into discussions which are clearly designed only for that purpose
That's a preposterous and transparently cowardly response, AChristian. You're refusing to answer the question because you don't know how to answer it without either looking silly, or else admitting that the Bible is in error.
Every time I present a question you cannot answer, you hide behind that defense; whenever I "attack the Bible" with a question you think you can answer you are only too happy to "enter into the discussion; you did that as recently as two hours ago with your "Bride of Christ" rebuttal to my argument.
You're not fooling anyone, AChristian; not even the ones who you've listed as your admirers--D. Wiltshire, SadieJive, OutaService, Island Woman. Stop running away from the hard questions, AChristian. Answer the question:
Which is more likely:
1. The 1 Samuel writer was correct: God did order the killing of the suckling babes.
or
2. The 1 Samuel writer was mistaken?
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
ordinarily i would post this topic in the "bible research" forum, but i found the following on the "friends" forum, in the "tree of what" thread, so i will leave it here.. achristian explains,.
[when] free people have a knowledge of evil they always, at least briefly, consider doing evil.
and, even having evil thoughts for a brief fleeting moment makes people less righteous than god.
AChristian writes to SixofNine,
In all seriousness though, I know the gripes you have with some of the contents of the Old Testament. But you know very well that the message Christians preach today is one of "Love thy neighbor," and you know that the Christian scriptures neither encourage nor condone behavior that is harmful to anyone. That being the case, why are you so opposed to Christianity?I cannot speak for Six, but the reason some people oppose the literalism that extremist Christians espouse is that it requires that one believe that every story in the Bible is true. Few people have the stomach for the actions attributed to the all-loving god of the Bible who the author of 1 Samuel 15:1-3 said ordered the killing of infants and suckling babes, babes who surely had done nothing to warrant being killed.
They furthermore find it impossible to reconcile this passage with teaching elsewhere which hold that the innocent children must not be punished for the sins of their fathers.
Samuel was elder statesman to Saul, the King of Israel. In the first days of Saul's reign, he told Saul that the Lord wanted the Amalekites--who hundreds of years earlier had been in conflict with Israel--destroyed utterly. Here are the words of Samuel:
The LORD sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD. Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. (1 Samuel 15:1-3)
Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sins. (2 Kings 14:6)Which is more likely? That Samuel was told by the Lord to have Saul murder infants and sucklings, or Samuel was mistaken about what the Lord wanted? Thomas Paine expressed well his objection to Samuel's story in a letter from Paris to a Christian friend in 1797:The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. (Ezekiel 18:20)
"What makes this pretended order to destroy the Amalekites appear the worse, is the reason given for it. The Amalekites, four hundred years before, according to the account in Exodus 18 ...had opposed the Israelites coming into their country, and this the Amalekites had a right to do, because the Israelites were the invaders, as the Spaniards were the invaders of Mexico. This opposition by the Amalekites, at that time, is given as a reason, that the men, women, infants and sucklings, sheep and oxen, camels and asses, that were born four hundred years afterward, should be put to death"
Now, which do you think is more likely, AChristian:
1. The 1 Samuel writer was correct: God did order the killing of the suckling babes.
or
2. The 1 Samuel writer was mistaken?
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
ordinarily i would post this topic in the "bible research" forum, but i found the following on the "friends" forum, in the "tree of what" thread, so i will leave it here.. achristian explains,.
[when] free people have a knowledge of evil they always, at least briefly, consider doing evil.
and, even having evil thoughts for a brief fleeting moment makes people less righteous than god.
AChristian,
I do not find anywhere in your response the answer to my question; you've avoided the central dilemma resident in your theology.
You've repeatedly argued that God didn't make man incorruptible to begin with because he wanted to have a natural loving relationship with man; he wanted to receive a love from man which comes naturally from man, a love which man chooses to give, a love which is not forced, or automatic, as it would be if God made man incorruptible to begin with. He doesn't want love from men who have no choice but to love him, you claim.
If your understanding is correct, then it would make no sense for God to put man in a position where it would be impossible for him to give to God the only type of love you claim God wants--the natural love which comes only from those who have the freedom to choose not to love God if one wished.
You don't deny, do you, that those who are made incorruptible and then granted eternal life no longer have the option of choosing not to love God, do you?
You seem to be suggesting that one of the conditions that must be met by the potential "brides" of Christ is that they must agree to give up their freedom not to love God. That certainly would seem to make sense to me, but the fact that the future bride willingly gives up this right to choose not to love God does not take anything away from my argument that the now incorruptible and eternally living man no longer has the freedom to choose not to love God. It doesn't matter that the bride willing gave up this freedom; God now will receive from man exactly the kind of love you claimed he never wanted: love which is impossible not to give. Thus, for an eternity, the incorruptible man will be offering to God the kind of love he doesn't want.
This seems to be totally contradictory behavior from God, and that's why I think your theology is nonsensical.
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
a water bearer in india had two large pots, each hung on the ends of a pole which he carried across his shoulders.
one of the pots had a crack in it, while the other pot was perfect and always delivered a full portion of water.. .
at the end of the long walk from the stream to the house, the cracked pot arrived only half full.
A water bearer in India had two large pots, each hung on the ends of a pole which he carried across his shoulders. One of the pots had a crack in it, while the other pot was perfect and always delivered a full portion of water.
At the end of the long walk from the stream to the house, the cracked pot arrived only half full. For a full two years this went on daily, with the bearer delivering only one and a half pots full of water to his house.
Of course, the perfect pot was perfect for the task for which it was made, and proud of its accomplishments. But the poor cracked pot was ashamed of its own imperfection, and miserable that it was able to accomplish only half of what it had been made to do.
After two years of what it perceived to be a bitter failure, it spoke to the water bearer one day by the stream. "I am ashamed of myself, and I want to apologize to you. I have been able to deliver only half my load because this crack in my side causes water to leak out all the way back to your house. Because of my flaws, you have to do all of this work, and you don't get full value from your efforts," the pot said.
The bearer said to the pot, "Did you notice that there were flowers only on your side of the path, but not on the other pot's side?" That's because I have always known about your flaw, and I planted flower seeds on your side of the path, and every day while we walk back, you've watered them. For two years I have been able to pick these beautiful flowers to decorate the table. Without your being just the way you are, there would not be this beauty to grace the house.
Moral: Each of us has our own unique flaws. We're all cracked pots. But it's the cracks and flaws we each have that make our lives together interesting and rewarding.
You've just got to take people for what they are, and look for the good in them.
Blessed are the flexible, for they shall not be bent out of shape. Remember to appreciate all the different people in your life! I'm so thankful for all my crackpot friends!
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
ordinarily i would post this topic in the "bible research" forum, but i found the following on the "friends" forum, in the "tree of what" thread, so i will leave it here.. achristian explains,.
[when] free people have a knowledge of evil they always, at least briefly, consider doing evil.
and, even having evil thoughts for a brief fleeting moment makes people less righteous than god.
JosephAlward asked,
Why wouldn't God just make all men incorruptible to begin with, so he could let all of them have eternal life?Faithful says,
Joe, you are amazing. I will refrain from making another attack on your memory or reading comprehension skills like I have done in the past. Since maybe your problem is age related or due to some medical condition which you can't help. AC said earlier in this same thread, more than once I believe, "God made us free [able to do both good and evil, aka "corruptible"] so that our love for Him and for others could be true love, being neither forced nor programmed." That certainly makes sense to me.I had AChristian’s explanation in mind when I composed the question above; I wasn’t sure whether you accepted it or not; that’s why I asked you that question. If my post had been directed to AChristian, I would have skipped the question and gone straight to the rebuttal below. Here it is:
You imply that God didn't make man incorruptible to begin with because he wanted to have a natural loving relationship with man; he wanted to receive a love from man which comes naturally from man, a love which man chooses to give, a love which is not forced, or automatic, as it would be if God made man incorruptible to begin with. He doesn't want love from men who have no choice but to love him, you claim.
However, what about after God gives man eternal life? You say that this happens when God decides that a man has become perfectly righteous, and at that point either God makes him incorruptible, or he automatically becomes incorruptible.
No matter how the incorruptibility comes about, it will no longer be possible for the man living for eternity to show a natural love to God, according to you, because his love will not be automatic, since it will be impossible for him not to love God--the now incorruptible man will no longer be able to choose not to love God.
Since this is exactly the kind of love you say God does not want, it makes no sense for God to grant men eternal life if it means making them incorruptible, for then there would be men living for eternity who could never love God the way he wants to be love.
It's logically absurd to argue that this god--if it exists--would deliberately give everlasting life to men who could never love him naturally, the way God wants to be loved.
Does AChristian’s explanation still "make sense" to you?
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
in this post i present evidence that marks story about jesus' feeding of loaves and fishes to the five thousand followers on the shore of the sea of galilee is a fictional story constructed from various passages in the old testament... .
i will place over them one shepherd, my servant david, and he will tend them; he will tend them and be their shepherd.
(ezekiel 34:23).
RWC,
You have written much that deserves a response, but I don't have time to do it all tonight. For now, I will just rebut one of the points you made; I will try to get to the others later.
Mark clearly was writing what happened.
How is it possible for Mark to have been writing about what had happened? Mark wasn’t a disciple, and there’s no evidence he was at the alleged feeding of the loaves and fishes, so he either heard the story second-hand from someone else, or else the story really is just a teaching parable about Jesus.
The notion that the gospel writers would write parables about Jesus is not that far-fetched, is it? When they have Jesus tell a parable, it's not always clear that the events described in the parable didn't actually happened, or won't actually happen. Given the presence of so many parables out of the mouth of Jesus, it is not surprising that the gospel writer might wish to use the same teaching technique that Jesus used, is it? Thus, the gospel writer seems to have told parables about Jesus, and the evidence for this in the fishes and loaves story is found in the great many parallels to Scriptures, the Elisha multiplication of the loaves, the 23rd Psalm....you know the list, it's quite long.
You still think there's no way the loaves story is a parable?
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
ordinarily i would post this topic in the "bible research" forum, but i found the following on the "friends" forum, in the "tree of what" thread, so i will leave it here.. achristian explains,.
[when] free people have a knowledge of evil they always, at least briefly, consider doing evil.
and, even having evil thoughts for a brief fleeting moment makes people less righteous than god.
Why wouldn't God just make all men incorruptible to begin with, so he could let all of them have eternal life?
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
in this post i present evidence that marks story about jesus' feeding of loaves and fishes to the five thousand followers on the shore of the sea of galilee is a fictional story constructed from various passages in the old testament... .
i will place over them one shepherd, my servant david, and he will tend them; he will tend them and be their shepherd.
(ezekiel 34:23).
RWC, do you think it is a coincidence that the 23rd Psalm has the Lord leading his people beside the waters and making them lie down in green pastures, and Mark has Jesus lead his people beside the waters of Galilee and make them lie down on the green grass?
Do you think it is a coincidence that in Scripture the servant of the man of God complains about not having enough food, but is ordered to feed them anyway, and it is miraculously accomplished, with food left over, and then Mark tells us the exact same thing happened with Jesus, that his disciples complained about not having enough food to feed the people, but were ordered to do it anyway, and it was miraculously accomplished, with food left over?
You have to honestly ask yourself this question, RWC, and then please give us your answer: Which do you really think is more likely the explanation for the loaves and fishes story?
1. It happened pretty much as Mark said it did.
2. Mark story was not literally true, but was instead a beautiful parable about Jesus' love, showing that the lost people of Israel, who were like sheep, could count on Jesus to give them the spiritual nourishment they needed to know God.
If you choose Number 1, RWC, can you assure us that it is not because you've already made a prior commitment to believe every story in the Bible is literally true, but because you've analyzed the story and it seems more likely to be literally true than just a parable?
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
ordinarily i would post this topic in the "bible research" forum, but i found the following on the "friends" forum, in the "tree of what" thread, so i will leave it here.. achristian explains,.
[when] free people have a knowledge of evil they always, at least briefly, consider doing evil.
and, even having evil thoughts for a brief fleeting moment makes people less righteous than god.
It's been argued in this forum that because man's nature is sinful, man doesn't deserve eternal life. God, if he exists and is the creator of man, certainly seems to have the right to deny eternal life to man, but by what logic would it seem reasonable that he do so?
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
