Of course with your rational we ought to just kill all the innocent before they reach the age of accountability thus guaranteeing them their eternal security. Comforting thoughts no doubt.
frreal on April 3, 2007 at 12:46 AM

Displaying some interesting leaps of logic in that statement. Interesting as in incredibly nasty. You are reading things in that don’t belong, and using that to smear those who object to your point of view.

So anyway you feel compelled to mock my conversion because I am skeptical about your beliefs having been there done that all I can do is shrug.

AS far as your “conversion” goes, just never saw one so riddled with cliches.

I argue simply that you’ve read it wrong if you come to the conclusion that God takes innocent life in such as crass manner. If God gives life, then He can take it whenever He choses.

I read it simply as it is written. I don’t know what can be more crass then God telling men to smite the little ones with swords, or did they smother them, or perhaps they just burned them alive when they burned the city? I fail to see the mercy. Though punishement of innocent is more than evident. You and Esthier rationalize that its ok to kill the little boys because they MIGHT avenge deaths. Absurd logic. Of course with your rational we ought to just kill all the innocent before they reach the age of accountability thus guaranteeing them their eternal security. Comforting thoughts no doubt.

You feel the need to argue, justify, rationalize that God is both righteous and justified in killing innocent children because he is God and all that God does is good. I argue that the mere fact that an immoral behavior requires the apologists to justify it indicates lack of inspiration.

Though I don’t yet accept the human race emerged from the primordial ooze I have difficulty now accepting the moral code of the Biblical God.

frreal on April 2, 2007 at 7:13 PM

I argue simply that you’ve read it wrong if you come to the conclusion that God takes innocent life in such as crass manner. If God gives life, then He can take it whenever He choses. If the life in question is indeed innocent, then nothing but eternal security and peace and love is the fate of the innocent child or adult. What is so horrible about that?
AS far as babies go, yeh, none have sinned because they haven’t had the chance. However, God is able to see things we can’t. Adolph Hitler was a cute baby, but he sure didn’t grow up into a nice adult. If you or I had been able to see the nasty character inside that adorable little bundle, we would have probably shuddered. God is just. If you were to be privy to the things He sees that we don’t you would end up agreeing that He judges fairly.

I don’t know why this statement makes me laugh at loud. If you didn’t read anything, on what grounds did you get baptized, on what inspiration did you base your “devote”ness and with what exactly did you evangelize?
naliaka on April 2, 2007 at 5:41 PM

I was born & raised Catholic went to private school and church every weekend and every holiday. I had some difficulty with the various rules of the church. One of which being that the church never provided me with a bible. Sermons were generally pulled from NT sources. I was more than familiar with the great stories of bible from the creation to the resurrection. I never questioned their veracity.

I thought there had to be more to God then the Catholic church so I went searching and found a fairly fundamental Baptist church. No speaking in tongues though. The preacher taught from the bible and it spoke to my heart. He provided scriptures to view with his sermons and everyone brought their bibles to Sunday school in the morning, sunday service, then evening Sunday service then again on Wednesday evening. After 8 or 9 months I felt compelled to step forward, profess and accept Jesus as savior during one of the alter calls. I was baptized shortly after. I was content that I had followed God’s calling and secured my spot in heaven during the hereafter. I felt compelled to share my experience with others.

Many years went by and I felt it was time for me to seek a deeper understanding of God’s word and make sure I was doing all I could do. Of course in doing so I was eventually to read many passages I had never been exposed to, inconsistiences, character flaws, and a multitude of other pinprick holes that ultimately lead to my current skepticism of scripture.

So anyway you feel compelled to mock my conversion because I am skeptical about your beliefs having been there done that all I can do is shrug.

You feel the need to argue, justify, rationalize that God is both righteous and justified in killing innocent children because he is God and all that God does is good. I argue that the mere fact that an immoral behavior requires the apologists to justify it indicates lack of inspiration.

Though I don’t yet accept the human race emerged from the primordial ooze I have difficulty now accepting the moral code of the Biblical God.

The problem with Atheism is that it would only take one example of a miracle that cannot be explained away, and Atheism becomes shot.

Vanceone on April 2, 2007 at 11:17 AM

Ya’ll are thinking about something like the whomping, split the Red Sea sort of thing, aren’t you?
The miracle that convinces the atheist is that staggering, stunned, utterly personal, terrifyingly lonely moment when he realizes that he’s alive, but by all rights, shouldn’t be. John Newton experienced it in the middle of the deep blue sea, as his battered ship settled down after a horrific storm. That would be toughened, hard-drinking and wild living slave-ship sailor, turned fervent anti-slavery abolitionist John Newton who wrote Amazing Grace.

In the meantime, there’s nothing much else to say in meager words that would convince anyone.

I’m just never going to be able to understand why “atheists” spend such vast amounts of time thinking about and debating something they are certain does not exist.

Professor Blather on April 2, 2007 at 11:02 AM

Even atheists can accept that the concept of god is an important topic that plays a major role in the lives of theists and non theists alike. Why shouldn’t atheists want to discuss the logic (or lack thereof) behind religion?

AP gave a better answer at 11:07 AM

The problem with Atheism is that it would only take one example of a miracle that cannot be explained away, and Atheism becomes shot.

Vanceone on April 2, 2007 at 11:17 AM

The problem with that argument is that there are no verifiable miracles that cannot be explained logically. Sure, there are some in The Bible, but how are we sure those really occurred? Because The Bible says they occurred? Not happening, buddy.

Enrique on April 2, 2007 at 11:24 AM

Zetterson on April 2, 2007 at 11:31 AM
Agreed.

naliaka on April 2, 2007 at 5:53 PM

Beats me. Others’ relationships with God completely confound me.

I only hope that people never quit looking, even Christians. Don’t take any information you have for granted.

PRCalDude then here is another essay on the canonization of the New Testament. I disagree that all arguments are circular. Either the facts corroborate what you say or they don’t.

Which facts do you choose to believe, the ones for or against the Christian God? Why do you find the facts against compelling?

naliaka on April 2, 2007 at 5:41 PM

Good point. Though I have to say I’ve known people like that who called themselves Christians. They bothered me more than anyone.

Please note I was a former devout full immersion baptized evangelizing, yet not well read, born again believer. It was in my attempts to become a more faithful servant I endeavored to read the bible resulting in my current skepticism.

frreal on April 2, 2007 at 3:57 PM

I don’t know why this statement makes me laugh at loud. If you didn’t read anything, on what grounds did you get baptized, on what inspiration did you base your “devote”ness and with what exactly did you evangelize?

The ones that make you feel good vs the ones that make you cringe.

frreal on April 2, 2007 at 5:09 PM

And just so you know, the knowledge that people intentionally reject God in favor of hell is not something that makes me feel good.

You may be flipping out over the fire, but it is inconsequential compared to life without God. If it exists or if it doesn’t really has no meaning.

If hell was eternal fires but NOT separation from God, it would not be hell. It would be better than life here.

Was Rahab trusting in strangers or had she heard of the atrocities committed by the Israelites in their conquest and just wanted to save her own skin?

frreal on April 2, 2007 at 5:07 PM

Are you asking me to read a dead person’s mind? Either way, she had more faith in those two spies than she had in her own people. She had faith that they would spare her, which isn’t something any story she may or may not have heard could have told her.

So maybe she’d heard how horrible they were, but obviously she also thought they would protect her better than her own.

Ahh metaphors Esthier but then which verses are we to interpret as metaphors and which are to be taken literally? The ones that make you feel good vs the ones that make you cringe.

frreal on April 2, 2007 at 5:09 PM

I don’t know. Maybe you should decide since you’re so great at selectively reading what others write.

I didn’t say it was a metaphore. I’ve only said that it’s possible to read it that way.

But clearly Jesus isn’t talking about any fire you or I know about, because fire does not burn eternally and it cannot continue to cause pain to a body once the nerves are burned off.

Then again, we don’t have a concept of forever either. So the whole thing is a bit of a mystery.

The only known is that it is eternal separation from God. Maybe human beings literally become a never-ending human torch with flame resistant nerves upon separating from God. Or maybe the flames are something else entirely.

To concentrate on the flames themselves though is to miss the point entirely. The worst thing to come from hell is separation from God.

Was Rahab trusting in strangers or had she heard of the atrocities committed by the Israelites in their conquest and just wanted to save her own skin?

frreal on April 2, 2007 at 5:07 PM

DOn’t get that impression at all from the scripture passages. She did however ask for relief for her family not to be slaughtered, so she did have a consideration for them that went beyond herself, which was respected. Why describe the Israelite success in pitched battles against attacking tribes as atrocities? Why rag on the Israelites for doing same or less than their neighbors would have done to them? They didn’t have the Geneva Conventions back then. It was brutal. The tribal groups in that area were engaged in some pretty horrific stuff as part of their own worship traditions, which the overwhelming majority of modern people would be appalled by and condemn in no uncertain terms. Don’t pretend that the Midianites and the Cannanites and so forth were all nicey nicey. Sacrificial customs, including child sacrifice, and shrine prostitution were all elements stated by God as despicable and disgusting. You disagree that God was right to call such practices vile? These all crept into Israelite culture over time and corrupted their worship and their daily lives, so much that God was moved on several occasions to warn the Israelites to cease and desist or face punishment. They were hammered several times for ignoring His warnings.

Heh, I’m in Central Pennsylvania, so it probably won’t happen, but it looks like we reached common ground. Cheers anyway!

Bad Candy on April 2, 2007 at 5:06 PM

Well, I’ll drink a Yuengling to you anyway…