So you're saying, essentially, that god can arbitrarily decide to kill every living thing on earth
As I already posted, there was nothing arbitrary about it.
Also, unless you have me confused with someone else your comment about the Constitution is nothing but a red herring. You asked for evidence that god had killed people who did not deserve to be put to death and I provided it, based on the laws of capital punishment in the US. The Constitution had nothing to do with it.
Yes, the Constitution has a lot to do with it. Check the 8th amendment. Also I asked for you to show US law was superior. I stated I think no man has the right to take the life of another, implying God's law is superior.
The amount of scriptural gymnastics necessary to try and explain why god allowed the serpent into the GoE is truly astounding, but it ignores the underlying inconsistency of the situation: Why would an omniscient being ever require proof of anything? He already knows everything, so any "testing" he may do is superfluous.
I already addressed this also. Any "proof" was not for Jehovah's benefit. It was for ours. (1 Cor 10:11) If Jehovah had just stated Adam's love wasn't pure and kicked him out of the garden would that make you feel better? Also there is this, "And without faith it is impossible to be well-pleasing unto him ; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek after him." Adam didn't have enough faith. (Heb 11:6)
The priests didn't rule; they would have been subject to the laws of their captors. The captors let the priests keep religious control, due to negligence.
You're right. Their rejection of their king caused them to lose out on that promise.
That quote does not say that the scriptures are complete, but most likely refers to older Jewish scripture, inc. the esoteric 1 Enoch.
If you genuinely believe that "Paul" would write to Timothy, saying that any scripture that any cult put together, without him even seeing it, in the future, is always correct, then you have a few rocks flying loose in your head.
No, I believe there are fake scriptures.
Even if you can contort into believing that all scripture written after that Tim quote is valid, it still does not say that the scriptures are complete
The internal harmony and completeness of the Bible testifies to it's completeness and divine authorship.
Read this, and you will see that it's not an illustration, but consistent with what Jews believed at the time.
If it does not agree, as does the rest of the Bible, with what Jehovah told Adam what death would mean to him then it is not from the same author, Jehovah.
If you want to get rid of hell/hades, then by all means tell me that Luke was an idiot. But to pretend that it's not written in the NT, makes you look like a Seventh Day Adventist, or worse: you have the obtuseness of a Catholic.
The fact that people in heaven are talking to people in hell should be a big enough indication that it's an illustration, notwithstanding what the rest of the Bible says. What part of a man goes to hell? What I read is that the "wages of sin in death", instead of torture. I must assume you missed that part.
I am well aware that there are two version of Christianity: one by Paul, and one by Matthew. The strict Matthean version was unsuitable to gentiles, so Paul made another one. Then the Mattheans condemned Paul, saying "
 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
We know Paul was false prophet, because the fruit was the Catholic church.
 For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.
I can't find Luke warning of Paul being a false Christ. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough :-) It seems very strange to me that Matthew was written way after Paul, yet fails to mention that Paul should be excluded from this warning. It seems like the writer of the sermon on the mount is trying to tell me something. What is it?
Paul has nothing to do with Catholicism. Paul's own words many times condemn Catholicism. And what does Paul have anything to do with leaving your family and sticking to you wife?
Cherry pick much? That's what Catholicism does. Why don't you just pick a handful of scriptures and throw away the rest of the Bible. Maybe then you can prove your point. If that's not sufficient maybe you can add some of your own Sacred Pronouncements as does Catholicism. Maybe then you can be right. But don't make the same mistake as them. You DEFINATELY need to remove the scripture that says, "by their fruits you will know them".
It seems like the writer of the sermon on the mount is trying to tell me something. What is it?
He's telling you not to believe false doctrines, such as Jehovah doesn't want us to work to provide for our family.
This is all a bit irrelevant to my original observation that you have no evidence that following God's law brings about some economic nirvana
"Love your neighbor as yourself". And nope I have no evidence it's works because most people don't follow it.
Can you show that following them doesn't lead to "nirvana"? Which obediant people will we use as a case study? I've already made this point.
The belief that "souls" do not exist forever. Maybe just six or seven lifetimes? There must be some afterlife torture involved.
Meanwhile you winning the "Proper Brand" of religion chill out in your peaceful existence which follows.
Because all of those poor afflicted souls wont be tortured after you and your conscious are gone.
Men do not "have" souls. Men "are" souls just like animals "are" souls. When we die, we cease to exist. Throughout the Bible souls die. If you want to prove this is what the Bible teaches then create a new thread. The Bible does not teach reincarnation. It teaches resurrection. It also teaches both the righteous and the unrighteous will be resurrected. In Revelation "hades" itself is thrown into the Lake of Fire, which is second death. Ever wonder how a lake of fire can be thrown into a lake of fire? "Death" is also thrown into the Lake of Fire. Surely there is some symbolism going on here. Revelation does not leave us guessing. It tells us the Lake of Fire means second death, or eternal destruction, as if by fire.
The belief in an immortal soul actually undermines the entire Christian faith since it all hinges on the resurrection of the dead
. If the dead are not dead then there is no resurrection of the dead, and then neither has Christ been resurrected. If Christ has not been resurrected then there is no resurrection of the dead and we will all die in our sins.
If you'd like me to go more in depth and provide scriptural support for these things then I'd be happy to answer any questions if you create a new thread.
If the serpent had NOT been allowed into Eden by Yahweh, would A&E have eaten the fruit?
I don't know. I am certain the rebellion would have occurred at least eventually. Satan, not the serpent itself, may or may not have hurried things along.
"(was) their love .... from selfish motives" Where did their motives come from? Who created them?
"Their love for Jehovah was not pure" Why not? Who created them? Who created love?
"Jesus Christ ultimately proved...." Really? Can you point me at the scripture detailing Christ's interactions with Adam and Eve, because I don't recall it.
I imagine these are some of the very same things Satan taunted Jehovah with. And I didn't say Christ and Adam interacted. I'm basically saying you can use them as case studies. We've considered Adam and his failure, now let's consider Christ. They were both created perfect humans and both relate to this universal issue. One failed under perfect conditions. One succeeded under terrible conditions. What conclusions can be drawn from this about humans?
It comes down to this, Jst. According to you, Adam and Eve were created by Yahweh. He chose EVERYTHING about them. He set up EVERY variable, EVERY aspect of the Environment. Every desire, every feeling, every thought A&E had was either put in them by Yahweh at their creation, or came to them as the result of something that happened to them from some OTHER aspect of Yahweh's creation.
Really? How did you come about this information? Source?
But Yahweh created everything. Everything that is, is so because of how he set it all up, is that not so? And if that is the case, then he bears the responsibility for what happens.
I'd be most grateful if you would actually address this point.
Your point is a Straw Man. See above.