whywontgodhealamputees.com

Main Discussion Zone => Biblical Contradictions => Topic started by: One Above All on September 13, 2011, 02:47:19 PM

Title: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: One Above All on September 13, 2011, 02:47:19 PM
I'm sure "love" isn't very well defined, but I'm 99.9% sure we can all agree that this (http://bible.cc/jeremiah/32-18.htm) is not love. In case you can't open the link, here's a quote:

Quote from: Jeremiah 32:18
You show love to thousands but bring the punishment for the fathers' sins into the laps of their children after them. O great and powerful God, whose name is the LORD Almighty,
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: curiousgirl on September 13, 2011, 03:18:48 PM
Which reminds me of a verse that directly contradicts the one you posted, Blaz:

Quote
Ezekiel 18
20 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. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.

So, that says the kids don't pay for their parent's sins.

However, David's firstborn son with Bathsheba was killed by God because of the "adultery" of his parents:

Quote
2 Samuel 12
13-14: Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the LORD.” Nathan replied, “The LORD has taken away your sin. You are not going to die. But because by doing this you have shown utter contempt for[a] the LORD, the son born to you will die.”

Bible God is one jacked up fictional mofo...
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: One Above All on September 13, 2011, 03:21:45 PM
Bible God is one jacked up fictional mofo...

You know, going off-topic for a second here, the Bible would probably make one of the best horror movies ever. Seriously, think about it: God is a childish psychopath with unlimited power, and anyone who dares to try and stop him (Satan, for example), is cast into Hell where they are tortured for all eternity. It's the recipe for an awesome "everyone dies" movie
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: curiousgirl on September 13, 2011, 03:28:39 PM
Speaking of hell, that doesn't seem very loving of Bible God either.  :)
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: violatedsmurf80 on September 14, 2011, 06:43:02 AM
Speaking of hell, that doesn't seem very loving of Bible God either.  :)

Speaking of hell i never seen anywere in the bible were GoD made hell before he cast the fallen angels into it? was is just always been there?
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: One Above All on September 14, 2011, 06:45:59 AM
Speaking of hell i never seen anywere in the bible were GoD made hell before he cast the fallen angels into it? was is just always been there?

Supposedly GAWD created everything. Hell is part of "everything"
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: changeling on September 14, 2011, 07:24:07 AM
The bible merely says that it is created for the devil and his angels (Matthew 25:41).

It doesn't say when. However since God already knew everything that was ever going to happen when he created
everything he would have prepared in advance don't you think.
I mean he might be too busy to do it when he had to cast the devil into it.
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: MMcNeely on September 14, 2011, 07:59:56 AM
But, if God loved us soooo much why would he cast in to hell for ETERNITY.  I have a 7 month old son and if he were to die today, according to the Bible, he would go to hell.  What did he do that was so bad?  Yes, he goes to our entertainment center and pulls out all of my PS3 games on a daily basis.  Yes, he has started reaching into his diaper and playing with his poo. And yes, he throws up on me at least once a week, but none of those things deserve an eternity... much less one second in hell.  If God is our father, than he is the worst father that has ever lived.
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: velkyn on September 14, 2011, 10:00:11 AM
we can see simply that this god can't even come up to the definition of "love" in supposedly own "holy book" in 1 Corinthians.  There is also nothing "fair" or "just" about this being.

Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: Truth OT on September 14, 2011, 01:07:24 PM
But, if God loved us soooo much why would he cast in to hell for ETERNITY.  I have a 7 month old son and if he were to die today, according to the Bible, he would go to hell.   ....................

Why do you say that?
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: screwtape on September 14, 2011, 01:25:10 PM
he smokes, drinks, chases loose women...
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: velkyn on September 14, 2011, 01:47:15 PM
But, if God loved us soooo much why would he cast in to hell for ETERNITY.  I have a 7 month old son and if he were to die today, according to the Bible, he would go to hell.   ....................

Why do you say that?

If I may, the bible says that to be "saved" one must accept JC as one's savior.  There is no exception for children, the mentally incapable, etc.  The RCC had to come up with Limbo to salve their consciences.

Of course, TOT, you don't seem to believe in heaven or hell, just some rather odd idea you have for "eternal life". 
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: Truth OT on September 14, 2011, 01:54:02 PM
But, if God loved us soooo much why would he cast in to hell for ETERNITY.  I have a 7 month old son and if he were to die today, according to the Bible, he would go to hell.   ....................

Why do you say that?

If I may, the bible says that to be "saved" one must accept JC as one's savior.  There is no exception for children, the mentally incapable, etc.  The RCC had to come up with Limbo to salve their consciences.

Of course, TOT, you don't seem to believe in heaven or hell, just some rather odd idea you have for "eternal life".

I guess i am a bit different because when I run across something that speaks of being saved, I immediately ask the "from what" question. Is the salvation that's spoken of in scripture a salvation from hell, from death, or from something else entirely? Or are there perhaps various different circumstances a different salvation method would be useful for?
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: curiousgirl on September 14, 2011, 03:22:36 PM
If I may, the bible says that to be "saved" one must accept JC as one's savior.  There is no exception for children, the mentally incapable, etc.  The RCC had to come up with Limbo to salve their consciences.

Other types of Christians also claim that children and those who are mentally handicapped/ill get automatic admission into heaven upon death. Of course, they pulled this out of their asses.

I used to attend a megachurch and watch another megachurch broadcast their sermons, and they both claim the automatic admission thing because "God is fair." Yet we are all supposed to be "born in sin".

I want to know, did God take David and Bathsheba's baby that he personally killed straight to heaven? I have heard Christians say that when kids die a horrible death (baby microwaved by drug addict parents) "at least they're in heaven now." Really??? Then why would God put them here to begin with? Just so they could die an excruciatingly painful death?

Nice job, Bible God. Oh, wait, you don't exist. That would explain a lot...
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: Truth OT on September 14, 2011, 03:35:42 PM
Other types of Christians also claim that children and those who are mentally handicapped/ill get automatic admission into heaven upon death. Of course, they pulled this out of their asses.

I used to attend a megachurch and watch another megachurch broadcast their sermons, and they both claim the automatic admission thing because "God is fair." Yet we are all supposed to be "born in sin".

I want to know, did God take David and Bathsheba's baby that he personally killed straight to heaven? I have heard Christians say that when kids die a horrible death (baby microwaved by drug addict parents) "at least they're in heaven now." Really??? Then why would God put them here to begin with? Just so they could die an excruciatingly painful death?

And yet others take the stance that when one dies, whether the desceased is an infact, teen, or adult, that they are simply died and thus are not taken anywhere, no Heaven, no hell, and no place of limbo in between.

The concept of original sin seems very oxymoronic. If sin involves an act of disobedience, then how can someone that hasn't committed any act be guilty of it?
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: curiousgirl on September 14, 2011, 04:23:23 PM
The concept of original sin seems very oxymoronic. If sin involves an act of disobedience, then how can someone that hasn't committed any act be guilty of it?

Precisely.
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: Brakeman on September 14, 2011, 04:48:01 PM
I think god was very loving when he smote Uzzah for helping.  Now that's a father's love.
Imagine telling your son that you'll kill him if he touches your new sports car and you find he accidentally touched it to keep it from being smashed. Do you still bring out the blade and cut his throat?

Then send his soul to hell forever too perhaps?

God is Love!

Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: The Wannabe on September 14, 2011, 05:26:55 PM

I used to attend a megachurch and watch another megachurch broadcast their sermons, and they both claim the automatic admission thing because "God is fair." Yet we are all supposed to be "born in sin".

I want to know, did God take David and Bathsheba's baby that he personally killed straight to heaven? I have heard Christians say that when kids die a horrible death (baby microwaved by drug addict parents) "at least they're in heaven now." Really??? Then why would God put them here to begin with? Just so they could die an excruciatingly painful death?

Nice job, Bible God. Oh, wait, you don't exist. That would explain a lot...

 It's absolutely amazing what these seminary graduates preach.  They babble on about how god is perfect, god is love, god is fair, god is patient, BLAH!  It's enough to make an agnostic sick :P 

The church i was last part of is the polar opposite of your Megachurch experience, Curiousgirl.  There's probably some 200 members in attendance, and there's a quaint little potluck after each service.  The pastor there previously preached at a much larger church, but for all his willful ignorance, i actually like the guy.  He's pretty upfront and honest in most of his messages, doesn't skim over the hard stuff.  That's more then i can say for most bible bashers. 

Anyways, about three months ago he started a series on genesis.  I remember clearly the last church service i went to, he was teaching on Genisis 29-30.  In these chapters Jacob, one of the esteemed patriarchs, is caught in a sadistic love triangle between his two wives, Leah and Rachel.  God is busy opening and closing wombs all throughout this soap opera.  Finally, chapter 30 ends with Jacob applying the use of magic to make a flock of lambs conceive "streaked, speckled, and spotted" offspring.  As the pastor stood on his pulpit, vainly trying to make sense of all this madness, i decided enough was enough.  Anyone trying to present this scattered anthology of nonsense as a written revelation from a "loving" god is beyond absurd. 

And that's when is stopped attending my local church :)           
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: violatedsmurf80 on September 14, 2011, 06:43:08 PM
Quote
Other types of Christians also claim that children and those who are mentally handicapped/ill get automatic admission into heaven upon death. Of course, they pulled this out of their asses.

I have always been confused about that. I have always learn that we wait until GoDs return or is it that we go strait to heaven. Not that it matters now but i was just wondering.

 1 Thessalonian 4:13-18 16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 18 Therefore encourage one another with these words.

Luke 23:43: And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.



Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: curiousgirl on September 14, 2011, 06:58:01 PM
I have always been confused about that. I have always learn what 1 Thessalonian 4:13-18 16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 18 Therefore encourage one another with these words.

The automatic admission to heaven that the megachurch pastors preached was based on this verse:

Quote
2 Corinthians 5
8 We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord. (NKJV)

They would interpret that (with their magic decoder rings) as going straight to heaven after they die (just with their souls, but their bodies will rise upon Christ's return as stated in 1 Thessalonians).

That verse is creepy. Sounds like they have a death wish.  &)

Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: curiousgirl on September 14, 2011, 06:59:38 PM
And that's when is stopped attending my local church :)         

I wonder if all the angels in heaven rejoice when someone gets UN-saved.  ;)
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: The Wannabe on September 14, 2011, 07:05:08 PM
And that's when is stopped attending my local church :)         

I wonder if all the angels in heaven rejoice when someone gets UN-saved.  ;)

If they do in fact exist, i would certainly like to think so.  :laugh:
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: rev45 on September 14, 2011, 07:07:32 PM
If they do in fact exist, i would certainly like to think so.  :laugh:
Of course they exist.  I see these guys everywhere, don't you?
(http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/6/3/2/33632.jpg?v=1)
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: The Wannabe on September 14, 2011, 07:17:01 PM

The automatic admission to heaven that the megachurch pastors preached was based on this verse:

Quote
2 Corinthians 5
8 We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord. (NKJV)

They would interpret that (with their magic decoder rings) as going straight to heaven after they die (just with their souls, but their bodies will rise upon Christ's return as stated in 1 Thessalonians).

That verse is creepy. Sounds like they have a death wish.  &)

Not only is it creepy, but the verse is incoherent with their own world view.


Quote
Keep your lives free from the love of money
and be content with what you have, because God has said,
"Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you."
Hebrews 13:5

And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.
Matthew 28: 20

 Am I a God at hand, saith the Lord, and not a God afar off?
Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the Lord.
Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord.  Jeremiah 23: 23-24

The christian god is omnipresent, he's everywhere, yet christians still have this idea of a heaven or kingdom where god physically/sprititually resides.  The idea of god sitting on his throne up in heaven is inconsistent with his supposed omnipresent nature. 

EDIT:  In other words, god's presence is felt in hell as much as it is in heaven.  There's no getting around it.
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: velkyn on September 14, 2011, 07:56:03 PM
I guess i am a bit different because when I run across something that speaks of being saved, I immediately ask the "from what" question. Is the salvation that's spoken of in scripture a salvation from hell, from death, or from something else entirely? Or are there perhaps various different circumstances a different salvation method would be useful for?
And that's a great question, TOT.  We have John 3 that says that *every* one is “condemned”.
Quote
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.
Condemned to what?  Death?  Everyone dies, but what else is there to threaten with?   It seems that ‘hell’ becomes more and more important as the religion evolves.  Again, how do we know what your god “really” means? 
We see that JC says little about other ways, assuming that JC was real at all.  We do get that bit in Matthew about how works are all that one needs, “in that you do for the least of these” but it seems that the main message from JC is that belief in him is all that matters, through Luke and John.  We also get from JC that only those that he/god allows to believe can believe.  Is this just or fair, TOT?  Or is this back to might makes right?  We see later from Paul and James that it is indeed just God’s whim that allows people to be saved, and from James that works are important.  We even have from Paul that the *only* way for women to be saved is through childbirth. Must suck to be infertile, damned by your own body.  Again, we see a book that is full of contradictions.  If this god is some ultimate truth, funny how this changes constantly and always behind how human society has changed. It never leads but only follows, decideing that God *must* have meant the new more humane version of society. 

and why does God so fail in the supposed description of "love" in his own holy book?   
Quote
The concept of original sin seems very oxymoronic. If sin involves an act of disobedience, then how can someone that hasn't committed any act be guilty of it?

funny how your divinely inspired book insists that this is true.  Over and over again. 
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: MMcNeely on September 14, 2011, 08:07:39 PM
I was a Christian for 22 years... very much a student of the Bible.  velkyn hit the nail on the head when she said, "There is no exception for children, the mentally incapable, etc."  If anyone can find one, I would love to see it.

Countless times in the Bible we see many contradictions on God's love... perhaps he's bi-polar?
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: screwtape on September 15, 2011, 07:10:08 AM
The concept of original sin seems very oxymoronic. If sin involves an act of disobedience, then how can someone that hasn't committed any act be guilty of it?

Because Eve and Adam's sin was so monstrous, so enormous, so sinful, that it damaged the entire universe, including all people, for all time.  They brought sin into the world.  Sin is the most potent substance in (and outside) the universe.  Since the fall, everything is permeated with sin.  That is why we all have original sin.  It is the leftover residue of Even and Adam's treachery.

And of course, yhwh was an innocent bystander in the whole sorted affair.


Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: velkyn on September 15, 2011, 08:57:18 AM
I was a Christian for 22 years... very much a student of the Bible.  velkyn hit the nail on the head when she said, "There is no exception for children, the mentally incapable, etc."  If anyone can find one, I would love to see it.

Countless times in the Bible we see many contradictions on God's love... perhaps he's bi-polar?

nah. My husband is bipolar and he isn't anything like this arrogant, whiny, impotent, psychotic character.  God is a great example of a cosmic brat. 
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: Truth OT on September 15, 2011, 09:51:39 AM
And that's a great question, TOT.  We have John 3 that says that *every* one is “condemned”.
Condemned to what?  Death?  Everyone dies, but what else is there to threaten with?

That's the trillion dollar question. From the context I would make the argument that the answer is in fact death as it presents no other alternative and uses terms like perish and then contrasts that term with age lasting life. As you stated, we all are going to die, so if death is the "condemnation" then the quote of nonbelievers being "condemned already" is apropro.
Hey, that's my opinion on the matter and that conclusion seems to make the most sense because it doesn't appear that any alternative conclusion is presented by the text, but I could be wrong with and equiped with a faulty decoder ring :).

  It seems that ‘hell’ becomes more and more important as the religion evolves.  Again, how do we know what your god “really” means? 
We see that JC says little about other ways, assuming that JC was real at all.  We do get that bit in Matthew about how works are all that one needs, “in that you do for the least of these” but it seems that the main message from JC is that belief in him is all that matters, through Luke and John.  We also get from JC that only those that he/god allows to believe can believe.  Is this just or fair, TOT?  Or is this back to might makes right?  We see later from Paul and James that it is indeed just God’s whim that allows people to be saved, and from James that works are important.  We even have from Paul that the *only* way for women to be saved is through childbirth. Must suck to be infertile, damned by your own body.  Again, we see a book that is full of contradictions.  If this god is some ultimate truth, funny how this changes constantly and always behind how human society has changed. It never leads but only follows, decideing that God *must* have meant the new more humane version of society. 

I would agree that hell has become more of a focus and perhaps has even been redefined as the religions, both Judaism, Christianity, and even Islam have evolved.
What I have found interesting in my recent studies of the gospels is that Jesus seems to speak about eternal (age lasting) life and having a place in the Kingdom as entirely different things. For instance in John 3 Jesus is quoted as having told Nico that one must be born again of water and of the spirit in order to have a place in the Kingdom, that was supposed to have come with power in the lifetime of those to whom Jesus spoke (Luke 9:26-27). However, when Jesus was asked about what was needed for inheriting life in the age, his response with quite different. According to Luke 10:26-28, in order to be gifted with life one must 'love Jehovah your God with your whole heart, life, strength, and mind, and your neighbor as yourself.' [Apparently this love for YHWH was centered around accepting and believing in the one He sent. (John 6 delves into this idea.)]

and why does God so fail in the supposed description of "love" in his own holy book?   
Quote
The concept of original sin seems very oxymoronic. If sin involves an act of disobedience, then how can someone that hasn't committed any act be guilty of it?

funny how your divinely inspired book insists that this is true.  Over and over again.

Good question about the love of God. Perhaps God's love for the individual is grossly overstated?
As far as the Bible writings advocating original sin, please, do tell why you feel this way.
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: velkyn on September 15, 2011, 11:07:54 AM
That's the trillion dollar question. From the context I would make the argument that the answer is in fact death as it presents no other alternative and uses terms like perish and then contrasts that term with age lasting life. As you stated, we all are going to die, so if death is the "condemnation" then the quote of nonbelievers being "condemned already" is apropro.
Hey, that's my opinion on the matter and that conclusion seems to make the most sense because it doesn't appear that any alternative conclusion is presented by the text, but I could be wrong with and equiped with a faulty decoder ring :).
  Interesting but since everything dies, including animals, what so special about death to humans?   I do agree, that there is nothing offered by the context right there, but if one accepts that the whole bible is from this god/JC, then we have a problem.  Heaven and hell are offered as alternatives and eternal life in some magical city.   
Quote
I would agree that hell has become more of a focus and perhaps has even been redefined as the religions, both Judaism, Christianity, and even Islam have evolved.
rather makes it hard to decide if any of it is “true” then. Which version is the “true” one, some older version or what is now being claimed, and all versions claimed to come right from this god?   I would also ask you again, is it just or fair for a god to not be clear on what it takes to be saved?  Is it just or fair to pick and choose and not allow some people this supposed “great gift”?  This seems to get back to the discussion about “might makes right”. 

Quote
What I have found interesting in my recent studies of the gospels is that Jesus seems to speak about eternal (age lasting) life and having a place in the Kingdom as entirely different things. For instance in John 3 Jesus is quoted as having told Nico that one must be born again of water and of the spirit in order to have a place in the Kingdom, that was supposed to have come with power in the lifetime of those to whom Jesus spoke (Luke 9:26-27).
and didn’t happen and per Revelation is supposed to happen sometime in the “future”.

Quote
However, when Jesus was asked about what was needed for inheriting life in the age, his response with quite different. According to Luke 10:26-28, in order to be gifted with life one must 'love Jehovah your God with your whole heart, life, strength, and mind, and your neighbor as yourself.' [Apparently this love for YHWH was centered around accepting and believing in the one He sent. (John 6 delves into this idea.)]
So you wish to claim these are two different things that JC was talking about? We have two claims of some “kingdom” that JC is supposed to rule over where everyone has this magical extra life.  It seems to me that being “born in the spirit” and “loving God” are quite similar if not identical.  I suspect you don’t hold with the idea, but so many Christians prate about how God has unconditional love. This sure seems like a condition and that anyone who dares be born in the wrong place/time is damned or dead. It also doesn’t work when the being that needs to be believed in intentionally doesn’t allow some people to do so.   

I don’t see this.  I also wonder where the requirement of giving up all of your earthly belongings comes in, since JC said that is also required to be perfect and pass through that eye of the needle.   

Quote
Good question about the love of God. Perhaps God's love for the individual is grossly overstated?
And what else is grossly overstated? How can you believe any of this as comeing from some magical being?  That amazes me.
Quote
As far as the Bible writings advocating original sin, please, do tell why you feel this way.
Well, I’ll refer you to your fellow Christians.  They are sure, you are not and all with bible verses you can run to, in order to support your version.  You all claim to have the only “right” interpretation. We have God saying that the sins of the father will be put onto the children (Deut. 5 supported other places like God killing David’s son for David’s sins, contradicted in Deut 24, and also supported other places)).  Psalm 51. Job 25. As you say, how can someone who didn’t do anything be guilty of it?  We then have Paul claiming that JC was the answer for Adam’s fall.  Romans 3, Romans 5.   Ephesians 2.   
Title: Original Sin Issue
Post by: Truth OT on September 15, 2011, 12:33:11 PM
Well, I’ll refer you to your fellow Christians.  They are sure, you are not and all with bible verses you can run to, in order to support your version.  You all claim to have the only “right” interpretation. We have God saying that the sins of the father will be put onto the children (Deut. 5 supported other places like God killing David’s son for David’s sins, contradicted in Deut 24, and also supported other places)).  Psalm 51. Job 25. As you say, how can someone who didn’t do anything be guilty of it?  We then have Paul claiming that JC was the answer for Adam’s fall.  Romans 3, Romans 5.   Ephesians 2.

The fact of the matter is that there are only 2 possibilities here, either original sin exists or it does not. There's no magical 3rd or 4th option, these are the only 2. From your post I take it that you believe that the Bible writings support both options and is therefore wrong because there is no way both options can be correct.

According to Ezekiel 18, the soul that is sinning will die! 'So, the son will not be blamed, for his father's unrighteous ways, and the father will not be blamed, for his son's unrighteous ways. Each one's righteous ways will be upon him, and the lawlessness of each are upon their own selves.
Then you have Exodus 34 which says, the Lord passed before his face while He was saying, 'Jehovah, the God of mercy, pity, patience, concern, and truth; who brings justice and mercy to thousands, and removes wrong-doing, unrighteousness, and sins, but who won't acquit the guilty; who [punishes] the sins of ancestors on their children, and on their children's children to the third and fourth generations.'
The only way these two ideas can jive is if one focuses on the PUNISHMENT aspect mentioned in Exodus and contrast that with the GUILT aspect mentioned in Ezekiel. What that of course would then mean is that one's offspring will suffer the effects of their ancestor's sin though they will not be found guilty of those sins.
Title: Re: Original Sin Issue
Post by: velkyn on September 15, 2011, 01:28:59 PM
Well, I’ll refer you to your fellow Christians.  They are sure, you are not and all with bible verses you can run to, in order to support your version.  You all claim to have the only “right” interpretation. We have God saying that the sins of the father will be put onto the children (Deut. 5 supported other places like God killing David’s son for David’s sins, contradicted in Deut 24, and also supported other places)).  Psalm 51. Job 25. As you say, how can someone who didn’t do anything be guilty of it?  We then have Paul claiming that JC was the answer for Adam’s fall.  Romans 3, Romans 5.   Ephesians 2.
The fact of the matter is that there are only 2 possibilities here, either original sin exists or it does not. There's no magical 3rd or 4th option, these are the only 2. From your post I take it that you believe that the Bible writings support both options and is therefore wrong because there is no way both options can be correct.
I am saying and supporting that the bible contradicts it self since you can support the idea of original sin and attack it.  You have presented a false dichotomy in order to protect your bible’s supposed coherence.

Quote
According to Ezekiel 18, the soul that is sinning will die! 'So, the son will not be blamed, for his father's unrighteous ways, and the father will not be blamed, for his son's unrighteous ways. Each one's righteous ways will be upon him, and the lawlessness of each are upon their own selves.
Yep, right here we have that only the guilty will be punished, not the innocent.
Quote
Deut 5: 9 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 10 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.
  And again here we have the guilty punished, and the innocent as well.
Quote
Then you have Exodus 34 which says, the Lord passed before his face while He was saying, 'Jehovah, the God of mercy, pity, patience, concern, and truth; who brings justice and mercy to thousands, and removes wrong-doing, unrighteousness, and sins, but who won't acquit the guilty; who [punishes] the sins of ancestors on their children, and on their children's children to the third and fourth generations.'
Here we have the guilty punished and the innocent as well.
And in Deut 24, we have this
Quote
16 Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin.
Only the guilty are punished.  Not the innocent.  God breaks his own word in killing David’s son for David’s sin here and in Ezekiel.   But he wouldn’t be breaking his word if he only said what is in Exodus  34 and Deut 5. 
Quote
The only way these two ideas can jive is if one focuses on the PUNISHMENT aspect mentioned in Exodus and contrast that with the GUILT aspect mentioned in Ezekiel. What that of course would then mean is that one's offspring will suffer the effects of their ancestor's sin though they will not be found guilty of those sins.
One is punished if one is found guilty.  Or  one is punished even if one is not guilty. those two claims, in your bible contradict each other. You yourself said “how can someone who didn’t do anything be guilty of it?”  If they aren’t guilty of it why are they being punished? 

And again, you decided that you need to assume something to make sense of your bible.  How not suprising.  It’s not they have to deal with the ramifications of what the guilty did, God actively punishes them for something they never did.  Why kill David’s son if he did nothing?  Can’t God *not* kill someone for once?   

Now, for those verses that you didn’t bother actually addressing.  We have original sin supported again and again in the NT. we have verses indicating a believe that all are less than pure from “birth” in the OT.  Can you show that the NT and OT don’t “really mean” those things? 
Title: Re: Original Sin Issue
Post by: Omen on September 15, 2011, 05:45:29 PM
The fact of the matter is that there are only 2 possibilities here,

False.

These are doctrinal theological qualifications, used to categorize rationalizations drawn from myth.  There really exists no means to establish that 'original sin' is anything intellectually speaking as if derived from the test, especially considering that original sin itself wasn't always original sin.. since it used to be ancestral sin.  The doctrine itself is completely non-existent in Judaism and is reliant mostly upon NT verses.  The problem, as is most of your babbling nonsense, is that you actively make no argument for anything other than your declaration.  Your citation is little more than metaphor, from a cultural ideology that doesn't even interpret it to mean that, that another cultural ideology claims in contradiction to the original.  Why would we suspend our intellect and intellectual honesty, in order to ignore that it has no relevant meaning in judaism?  Why would we pretend there is a cohesive message to be derived overall from the text, then circularly conclude that because there is a message, then it must be explained in a different way?

Quote
The only way these two ideas can jive..

Why would anyone ever care that they 'jive'? Why would anyone presuppose that they are supposed to 'jive'?  If we presuppose that it must jive, then rationalization it by inserting anything we wish as an explanation, then can we not do this with any kind of ideological religious text in existence?

Again, don't be mad because you've accepted a delusional qualification for belief and trying to rationalize that belief.  It is not our fault.
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: RaymondKHessel on September 15, 2011, 07:37:12 PM
@Lady V -

Yahweh slaughters just the innocent plenty, too, though I'm sure I don't have to remind you lol. Just wanted to add on to what you were saying... You know, he's pretty much just big on misery in general!  :P

One of my first real eye-openers to the vile nature of the Christian god was back when I was about 15... Sat in on a buddy of mine's after-school youth group (hey, they had free pizza. Cut me some slack!)...

The slaughter of Egypt's first born. Fucking IN.EX.CUSE.AB.LE.

Because Yahweh *MADE* Pharoah (just one guy, mind you), *MADE* him be a dick to Moses (so much for free will!), he then straight-up MURDERS THE FIRST BORN CHILDREN OF AN ENTIRE NATION.

No, but I'm sure Yahweh really wuved all those widdle babies and toddlers to pieces. Really.

Little bite sized chopped up dog kibbly pieces.

Now cue Truth OT or whoever to pop up making excuses why it's appropriate to snuff out the lives of mountains of kids over the magically-possessed behavior of ONE DUDE. That s**t never gets old.  &)

<mewling> "But the widdle babies got a free pass to heaven!"

A.)The bible never says that

and

B.)That's not love. Murder is murder. Cold blooded murder is not love, no matter how you slice it. That whole story is the calling card of a fucking apathetic psychopath.

Allowing terrible things to happen to people, when you have the ability to prevent it, is not love. Period. There is no excuse imaginable that justifies the way Christians think the universe is set up, let alone the "documented" behavior of their god.

Whether it's killing tons of innocents directly or permitting a single rape a thousand years ago or making kids born with their face turned inside out or addicted to crack or anything else that causes misery and pain and fear.


Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: Omen on September 16, 2011, 09:47:06 AM
OT, you could actually try responding to what I said instead of giving me a dismissive smite with little explanation.

If it is not relevant, then you can explain how it is not relevant.

You can also make an attempt to answer the questions asked of you:

Why would we suspend our intellect and intellectual honesty, in order to ignore that it has no relevant meaning in judaism?  Why would we pretend there is a cohesive message to be derived overall from the text, then circularly conclude that because there is a message, then it must be explained in a different way?

Why would anyone ever care that they 'jive'? Why would anyone presuppose that they are supposed to 'jive'?  If we presuppose that it must jive, then rationalization it by inserting anything we wish as an explanation, then can we not do this with any kind of ideological religious text in existence?


You claimed there are only two possibilities, there are not and I explained why there are not.  I also purposefully challenged you on your obfuscating presuppositionalism, where you have presupposed an incoherent series of ideological 'beliefs' as if they were either self evident or known without explanation, then make every statement as an argument from authority towards what you've seemingly made up at random.  As well as asking questions in a way that suppose all your base premises are valid, without your ability to argue for them effectively.

This is EXACTLY the kind of obscure and nebulous behavior on your part that was talked about in this thread:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20096.0.html

Your ability to willfully and dishonestly obfuscate doesn't save you from the intellectual responsibility of your claim.  Smite me all you want, it'll never go away and the problem will never change.
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: velkyn on September 16, 2011, 10:34:15 AM
I'll have to say, TOT, that you are quite a jerk from what you "smited" Omen for.  I mean, really, that's all you have to say to what he wrote, a good analysis of presuppotionalism that you *do* seem to cling to?

Espeiclaly saying it was "longwinded"?   If it's longwinded, I should demand some "smites" of my own since Omen did two concise paragraphs and I've done much longer.  &)
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: Historicity on September 16, 2011, 12:48:04 PM
JIBE, not jive.

It was a nautical term from the sailing days and meant coordinating the movement of the boom during tacking to sail upwind.  So by extension it means to coordinate.

I guess that the name jib for one of the sails is related.

The 1913 Webster's dicitionary gave gybe as the preferred spelling.

Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: Alzael on September 16, 2011, 03:15:51 PM
I'll have to say, TOT, that you are quite a jerk from what you "smited" Omen for.  I mean, really, that's all you have to say to what he wrote, a good analysis of presuppotionalism that you *do* seem to cling to?

Espeiclaly saying it was "longwinded"?   If it's longwinded, I should demand some "smites" of my own since Omen did two concise paragraphs and I've done much longer.  &)

I wish I could return the up-point that ToT gave me, it was such a farce. He claims that I was fair and being clear on what he was supposed to answer. All I did was say the exact same thing that I had been saying for some three threads and that everyone else had been saying as well. It's so disgustingly disingenuous. He had over four threads and a lot of conversations to understand it. And I certainly didn't say anything different. He simply realized that he couldn't evade the point anymore and now he's trying to make a saving throw.

Downvoting Omen for no apparent reason (well the reason is actually rather clear) is just him behaving even worse.

Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: velkyn on September 20, 2011, 09:41:04 AM
Unfortunately, many of our theist visitors do act badly.  However, they can redeem themselves by acknowledging what they did.  It doesn't hurt to apologize. 

I would like a response, TOT.  I'd also like a response to the "might equals right" thread we were discussing. 
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: Truth OT on September 20, 2011, 09:57:53 AM
Unfortunately, many of our theist visitors do act badly.  However, they can redeem themselves by acknowledging what they did.  It doesn't hurt to apologize. 

I would like a response, TOT.  I'd also like a response to the "might equals right" thread we were discussing.

Lady V, I must ask, what is it that you feel I should apologize for and why? Andwhat specifically do you wish for me to respond to?
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: Omen on September 20, 2011, 10:06:41 AM
Are you now pretending as if you are not aware that you avoid questions and dodge rebuttals when its convenient to do so?

Are you pretending as if you haven't had this pointed out ad nauseum to you by multiple individuals?

How did you come to the conclusion that that is normal honest behavior?
Title: Original Sin
Post by: Truth OT on September 20, 2011, 10:54:40 AM
Below is what I will call the Skeptic's Claim as it relates to certain biblical issues. The issue up for discussion here of course is original sin.

Quote
"Arguing the concept of original sin from the Bible is futile because the Bible is incoherent and contradictory on this subject. In some places it speaks in favor of the idea and in others it speaks against it. Because the Bible does this, it is therefore not possible to argue one way or the other on this issue. And the person attempting to do so must resort to special pleading the the like to support their stance."


I totally disagree with the above Skeptic Claim and believe drawing such a conclusion is based on heresay and lazy personal biblical study on the issue. It presupposes and accepts as fact that the Bible speaks out of both sides of its mouth on the issue when in fact that may not be the case. I would then add that original sin is not even an idea addressed AT ALL in the pages of scripture and is a theological concept created later that certain sects cherry pick and decontextualize certain scriptures to defend.
Title: Re: Original Sin
Post by: Omen on September 20, 2011, 10:58:56 AM
It presupposes

Citing two examples of contradictory statements is not a presupposition.  I don't think you know what the word means, no one needed to presuppose that the bible was contradictory in order to cite a contradiction.

Quote
when in fact that may not be the case.

One does have to presuppose the bible is absolutely true in order to rationalize every contradiction away however.  Which is what you do.

Effectively, you can't get us to accept your presuppositional apologetics and now you're using a series of dishonest accusatory stances because you know full well that your position is irrational.  You're trying to accuse us of what only YOU are guilty of.  Its an incredibly stupid and dishonest type of qualification of knowledge, where for example you would accuse a math teacher of having presumed that 1+1=2 while you claim 1+1=3, therefore you can dismiss it out of hand.
Title: Re: Original Sin
Post by: Truth OT on September 20, 2011, 11:09:24 AM
It presupposes

Citing two examples of contradictory statements is not a presupposition.  I don't think you know what the word means, no one needed to presuppose that the bible was contradictory in order to cite a contradiction.

Quote
when in fact that may not be the case.

One does have to presuppose the bible is absolutely true in order to rationalize every contradiction away however.  Which is what you do.

Effectively, you can't get us to accept your presuppositional apologetics and now you're using a series of dishonest accusatory stances because you know full well that your position is irrational.  You're trying to accuse us of what only YOU are guilty of.  Its an incredibly stupid and dishonest type of qualification of knowledge, where for example you would accuse a math teacher of having presumed that 1+1=2 while you claim 1+1=3, therefore you can dismiss it out of hand.

There you go making totally false claims and taking snipits of what I post to make it seem like I am making claims that I am not like that of biblical inerrancy. Looks like you've got your head down and your mind make up just like Clide Drexler.
As far as THIS SUBJECT is concerned, where is this cited contradiction? Furthermore, is what some claim as a contradiction even contradictory?
Title: Re: Original Sin
Post by: Omen on September 20, 2011, 11:18:21 AM
There you go making totally false claims

Oh really, such as?

Quote
and taking snipits of what I post to make it seem like I am making claims that I am not like that of biblical inerrancy.

That's funny, I didn't say biblical inerrancy.

You accept an unsubstantiated portion of the bible as true, presupposed without evidence or rational reason to do so.  You make dozens of arguments from 'authority' having presumed a subjective and purely arbitrarily message that can't be separated from your whim and any rationalization can be made towards to answer contradiction.  You've assumed it as absolutely true both without and despite evidence to the contrary, thus removing any possibility for a situation to arise in which you are wrong.  You've been told this before, you've been challenged on this before, and this is absolutely nothing new as far as criticizing your idiocy on this forum.

Quote
As far as THIS SUBJECT is concerned, where is this cited contradiction? Furthermore, is what some claim as a contradiction even contradictory?

Original sin doesn't exist.  Its a theological concept made up to rationalize towards a presupposed conditional belief.  As was pointed out to you before here:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20097.msg443566.html#msg443566

You couldn't be bothered to respond, two paragraphs were apparently 'long winded' and you gave me a smite with no more explanation than your own arrogant condescension because you can't get anyone to agree to your mindless presuppositional apologetics/arguments from authority.

Should I copy paste everything I said there, because its going to be the same problems?
Title: Re: Original Sin
Post by: Truth OT on September 20, 2011, 11:30:22 AM
There you go making totally false claims

Oh really, such as?

Quote
One does have to presuppose the bible is absolutely true in order to rationalize every contradiction away however.  Which is what you do.

That's funny, I didn't say biblical inerrancy.

You accept an unsubstantiated portion of the bible as true, presupposed without evidence or rational reason to do so.  You make dozens of arguments from 'authority' having presumed a subjective and purely arbitrarily message that can't be separated from your whim and any rationalization can be made towards to answer contradiction.  You've assumed it as absolutely true both without and despite evidence to the contrary, thus removing any possibility for a situation to arise in which you are wrong.  You've been told this before, you've been challenged on this before, and this is absolutely nothing new as far as criticizing your idiocy on this forum.

Quote
As far as THIS SUBJECT is concerned, where is this cited contradiction? Furthermore, is what some claim as a contradiction even contradictory?

Original sin doesn't exist.  Its a theological concept made up to rationalize towards a presupposed conditional belief.  As was pointed out to you before here:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20097.msg443566.html#msg443566

If you don't mind, I will quote myself:  I would then add that original sin is not even an idea addressed AT ALL in the pages of scripture and is a theological concept created later that certain sects cherry pick and decontextualize certain scriptures to defend.

What is your argument against what I have said? You seem go thru great effort to paint me as a person that tries to fix the discussion so that it's a heads I win, tails you lose kind of deal when in fact that is not the case at all. My assertations CAN be proven wrong and when they are specifically addressed and my position is defeated, I can admit that. Can you?
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: Omen on September 20, 2011, 11:30:45 AM
Notice that you didn't really respond to acknowledge or disagree about the part of your own accusatory false premises.  I have to restate that YOU are the only guilty of what YOU accused others of.
Title: Re: Original Sin
Post by: Omen on September 20, 2011, 11:33:05 AM
If you don't mind, I will quote myself:  I would then add that original sin is not even an idea addressed AT ALL in the pages of scripture and is a theological concept created later that certain sects cherry pick and decontextualize certain scriptures to defend.

What is your argument against what I have said? You seem go thru great effort to paint me as a person that tries to fix the discussion so that it's a heads I win, tails you lose kind of deal when in fact that is not the case at all. My assertations CAN be proven wrong and when they are specifically addressed and my position is defeated, I can admit that. Can you?

You just edited the post.

Which also contradicts what you claimed here:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20097.msg443497.html#msg443497

Which I responded too here:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20097.msg443566.html#msg443566

Which you ignored, smied me for, are now pretending like you either never said, or agreed to anyway.
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: Omen on September 20, 2011, 11:38:05 AM
Are you now admitting that what you claimed on: September 15th 2011

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20097.msg443497.html#msg443497

Well, I’ll refer you to your fellow Christians.  They are sure, you are not and all with bible verses you can run to, in order to support your version.  You all claim to have the only “right” interpretation. We have God saying that the sins of the father will be put onto the children (Deut. 5 supported other places like God killing David’s son for David’s sins, contradicted in Deut 24, and also supported other places)).  Psalm 51. Job 25. As you say, how can someone who didn’t do anything be guilty of it?  We then have Paul claiming that JC was the answer for Adam’s fall.  Romans 3, Romans 5.   Ephesians 2.

The fact of the matter is that there are only 2 possibilities here, either original sin exists or it does not. There's no magical 3rd or 4th option, these are the only 2. From your post I take it that you believe that the Bible writings support both options and is therefore wrong because there is no way both options can be correct.

According to Ezekiel 18, the soul that is sinning will die! 'So, the son will not be blamed, for his father's unrighteous ways, and the father will not be blamed, for his son's unrighteous ways. Each one's righteous ways will be upon him, and the lawlessness of each are upon their own selves.
Then you have Exodus 34 which says, the Lord passed before his face while He was saying, 'Jehovah, the God of mercy, pity, patience, concern, and truth; who brings justice and mercy to thousands, and removes wrong-doing, unrighteousness, and sins, but who won't acquit the guilty; who [punishes] the sins of ancestors on their children, and on their children's children to the third and fourth generations.'
The only way these two ideas can jive is if one focuses on the PUNISHMENT aspect mentioned in Exodus and contrast that with the GUILT aspect mentioned in Ezekiel. What that of course would then mean is that one's offspring will suffer the effects of their ancestor's sin though they will not be found guilty of those sins.

Is pointless because of your admission here:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20097.msg444421.html#msg444421

Note: An 'admission' you edited in AFTER the fact?
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: velkyn on September 20, 2011, 11:57:15 AM
Unfortunately, many of our theist visitors do act badly.  However, they can redeem themselves by acknowledging what they did.  It doesn't hurt to apologize. 

I would like a response, TOT.  I'd also like a response to the "might equals right" thread we were discussing.

Lady V, I must ask, what is it that you feel I should apologize for and why? Andwhat specifically do you wish for me to respond to?

To Omen for ignoring his post and making your little snide comments about it.   And, pardon me but

(http://chzichcafterdark.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/funny-pictures-wtf-cat.jpg)
do you mean "what do i want you to respond too?  My post, you know the one about how your claims that the bible doesnt' claim original sin being wrong and with the support to show this?
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: Truth OT on September 20, 2011, 12:00:07 PM
Notice that you didn't really respond to acknowledge or disagree about the part of your own accusatory false premises.  I have to restate that YOU are the only guilty of what YOU accused others of.

   One does have to presuppose the bible is absolutely true  in order to rationalize every contradiction away however.  Which is what you do.
   Effectively, you can't get us to accept your presuppositional apologetics  and now you're using a series of dishonest accusatory stances because you know full well that your position is irrational.  You're trying to accuse us of what only YOU are guilty of.  Its an incredibly stupid and dishonest type of qualification of knowledge, where for example you would accuse a math teacher of having presumed that 1+1=2 while you claim 1+1=3, therefore you can dismiss it out of hand.

So just to make sure I am following you..........It appears that you are saying that my presuppositional apologetics involves the idea that the Bible is absolutely true. If that what you are saying then I must say that your claim is wrong.

From my perspective, what you are doing is avoiding the issue up for discussion and appointing yourself as judge of my methods and motives without fairly examining either. You come out on your high horse with you holier and smarter than thou approach and but into a conversation that you add nothing to other than of course accusitory analysis. No progress has been made on the issue of whether or not original sin is in fact advocated by the biblical narratives by you inserting your 2 cents, I mean analysis; so what is the point?

As for what I accused people, specifically you, of was saying was this about the issue up for discussing:
Quote
it is therefore not possible to argue one way or the other on this issue. And the person attempting to do so must resort to special pleading the the like to support their stance."
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: Omen on September 20, 2011, 12:01:04 PM
do you mean "what do i want you to respond too?  My post, you know the one about how your claims that the bible doesnt' claim original sin being wrong and with the support to show this?

Except now he completely agrees with us.
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: Omen on September 20, 2011, 12:09:50 PM
avoiding the issue up for discussion

What issue?

And will this involve me copy pasting what I've already answered and you just flatly ignored?

Quote
and appointing yourself as judge of my methods and motives

I am indeed judging your behavior, your behavior is notoriously dishonest.

Quote
without fairly examining either.

I'm being more then fair, I even cite what you say when you say.  Not to mention when you pretend as if others had no said it or when you just dodge every issue purely at whim.  I judged you after fairly examining claims.  I explained how and why I reached such conclusions, much of which you never actively acknowledge to explain or even to disagree.  You seem to 'dissipate' when it comes down to you directly addressing your behavior.  In fact, its happened with such repetition that it became the subject of a topic on this forum.

Quote
You come out on your high horse with you holier and smarter than thou approach

You mean pointing out that you've presupposed something as true without cause to do so is holier and smarter than thou?

Quote
and but into a conversation that you add nothing to other than of course accusitory analysis.

I broke down a claim you made by making a rebuttal and asked you questions.  You ignored the rebuttal.

Quote
No progress has been made on the issue of whether or not original sin is in fact advocated by the biblical narratives by you inserting your 2 cents

I pointed out it is not and it is made up at whim to rationalize a theological whim.  You at first pretended like it was actually biblical, then later ( after editing in a statement you asked whether or not I had seen after the fact ) added a statement that agreed that it has no biblical basis.

Are you now admitting that original sin is without merit in contradiction to what you claimed earlier?

Quote
, I mean analysis; so what is the point?

As for what I accused people..

You accused people of have presuppositions in the manner that you presuppose conditions about the bible.  They do not and what you constructed was a blatant strawman.  I explained why, without acknowledgement from you.
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: Truth OT on September 20, 2011, 12:22:56 PM
Are you now admitting that what you claimed on: September 15th 2011

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20097.msg443497.html#msg443497

Well, I’ll refer you to your fellow Christians.  They are sure, you are not and all with bible verses you can run to, in order to support your version.  You all claim to have the only “right” interpretation. We have God saying that the sins of the father will be put onto the children (Deut. 5 supported other places like God killing David’s son for David’s sins, contradicted in Deut 24, and also supported other places)).  Psalm 51. Job 25. As you say, how can someone who didn’t do anything be guilty of it?  We then have Paul claiming that JC was the answer for Adam’s fall.  Romans 3, Romans 5.   Ephesians 2.

The fact of the matter is that there are only 2 possibilities here, either original sin exists or it does not. There's no magical 3rd or 4th option, these are the only 2. From your post I take it that you believe that the Bible writings support both options and is therefore wrong because there is no way both options can be correct.

According to Ezekiel 18, the soul that is sinning will die! 'So, the son will not be blamed, for his father's unrighteous ways, and the father will not be blamed, for his son's unrighteous ways. Each one's righteous ways will be upon him, and the lawlessness of each are upon their own selves.
Then you have Exodus 34 which says, the Lord passed before his face while He was saying, 'Jehovah, the God of mercy, pity, patience, concern, and truth; who brings justice and mercy to thousands, and removes wrong-doing, unrighteousness, and sins, but who won't acquit the guilty; who [punishes] the sins of ancestors on their children, and on their children's children to the third and fourth generations.'
The only way these two ideas can jive is if one focuses on the PUNISHMENT aspect mentioned in Exodus and contrast that with the GUILT aspect mentioned in Ezekiel. What that of course would then mean is that one's offspring will suffer the effects of their ancestor's sin though they will not be found guilty of those sins.

Is pointless because of your admission here:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20097.msg444421.html#msg444421

Note: An 'admission' you edited in AFTER the fact?

Simply put, I do not believe that the concept of original sin is taught in the scriptures. Advocates of it, though they cannot find it in any of the scriptures will cherry pick certain verses to fit into the concept, an extra biblical one, that they have concocted. That is the point I had been trying to make since the discussion began and my admission, (as you call it) of the following: I would then add that original sin is not even an idea addressed AT ALL in the pages of scripture and is a theological concept created later that certain sects cherry pick and decontextualize certain scriptures to defend, is not saying anything new or contradictory to what I originally asserted.
 
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: Truth OT on September 20, 2011, 12:41:02 PM
Omen, Omen, Omen, the reason why I say you make baseless accusations about me is specifically based on examples like this. Here you asked the following:

Quote
Are you now admitting that original sin is without merit in contradiction to what you claimed earlier?

After holding my head, I had to shake my head, then hold it again because my original argument was that ORIGINAL SIN WAS NOT A BIBLICALLY ADVOCATED CONCEPT!!!!!!! That was my point of contention all along.
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: Omen on September 20, 2011, 01:13:52 PM
After holding my head, I had to shake my head, then hold it again because my original argument was that ORIGINAL SIN WAS NOT A BIBLICALLY ADVOCATED CONCEPT!!!!!!! That was my point of contention all along.

Then you might want to continue holding your head:

Theological claims of original sin, in a different religion from yours, are no different in validity or authority then your own claims of what is biblically advocated or not.

You effectively don't have any right to claim that someone elses made up whim is invalid while your made up whim is valid.

Notice what I stated:

These are doctrinal theological qualifications, used to categorize rationalizations drawn from myth.  There really exists no means to establish that 'original sin' is anything intellectually speaking as if derived from the test, especially considering that original sin itself wasn't always original sin.. since it used to be ancestral sin.  The doctrine itself is completely non-existent in Judaism and is reliant mostly upon NT verses.  The problem, as is most of your babbling nonsense, is that you actively make no argument for anything other than your declaration.  Your citation is little more than metaphor, from a cultural ideology that doesn't even interpret it to mean that, that another cultural ideology claims in contradiction to the original.  Why would we suspend our intellect and intellectual honesty, in order to ignore that it has no relevant meaning in judaism?  Why would we pretend there is a cohesive message to be derived overall from the text, then circularly conclude that because there is a message, then it must be explained in a different way?


There rationalizations are made no differently from your own, I don't care if you think their made up rationalization is invalid because I already know it to be invalid, through pleading.  There are also not only 'two' options, since the bible is so nebulous to include countless options.  Plus, once we take into consideration your method of rationalization ( IE assuming unsubstantiated portions of it as true with little explanation or reason to do so ) we can effectively make up anything we wish.

So your logic doesn't follow: They're rationalization towards a presupposed nonsensical theology is not made invalid because your rationalization towards a presupposed nonsensical theology is different.
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: Truth OT on September 20, 2011, 01:33:34 PM
Theological claims of original sin, in a different religion from yours, are no different in validity or authority then your own claims of what is biblically advocated or not.

You effectively don't have any right to claim that someone elses made up whim is invalid while your made up whim is valid.

There rationalizations are made no differently from your own, I don't care if you think their made up rationalization is invalid because I already know it to be invalid, through pleading.  There are also not only 'two' options, since the bible is so nebulous to include countless options.  Plus, once we take into consideration your method of rationalization ( IE assuming unsubstantiated portions of it as true with little explanation or reason to do so ) we can effectively make up anything we wish.

So your logic doesn't follow: They're rationalization towards a presupposed nonsensical theology is not made invalid because your rationalization towards a presupposed nonsensical theology is different.

Only I did not declare anything to be biblically advocated. I said that the concept, original sin, was NOT biblically advocated and was in fact a concept that was foreign to the scriptural texts. As it pertains to this discussion, there is no "made up whim" that I have attempted to insert.

My beliefs about what I understand the collective texts that make up the Bible to teach about death and an afterlife (or lack thereof), for example would fit as being rationalizations that cannot be definately and objectively proven. I can admit that. I do however believe that there is more support from the texts for what I believe about death than what advocates of original sin believe about that subject. That is however, just my opinion, a strong one that I can defend, but subjective nonetheless.
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: Omen on September 20, 2011, 01:43:08 PM
Theological claims of original sin, in a different religion from yours, are no different in validity or authority then your own claims of what is biblically advocated or not.

You effectively don't have any right to claim that someone elses made up whim is invalid while your made up whim is valid.

There rationalizations are made no differently from your own, I don't care if you think their made up rationalization is invalid because I already know it to be invalid, through pleading.  There are also not only 'two' options, since the bible is so nebulous to include countless options.  Plus, once we take into consideration your method of rationalization ( IE assuming unsubstantiated portions of it as true with little explanation or reason to do so ) we can effectively make up anything we wish.

So your logic doesn't follow: They're rationalization towards a presupposed nonsensical theology is not made invalid because your rationalization towards a presupposed nonsensical theology is different.

 I said that the concept, original sin, was NOT biblically advocated

You're not getting it.
 
Quote
, there is no "made up whim" that I have attempted to insert.

All of your biblical arguments from authority are inserted presupposed whims no different from the concept of original sin.  You have never delivered an argument based on logic and reason to validate your religious claims.  Never.  You've been called on so repeatedly that its pretty much assumed you won't support any claim you do make and abandon it as soon as your called on it.

Quote
My beliefs about what I understand

They are no different from a christian who claims to believe in original sin and you are not describing any process that makes your fallacy laced arguments any more reasonable.  If you can't logically substantiate your beliefs as you so carelessly admit here:

Quote
"that cannot be definately and objectively proven."

Then you cannot claim:

Quote
believe that there is more support from the texts for what I believe

These are two contradictory extremes.  You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: Samuelxcs on September 21, 2011, 05:44:55 AM
If we should all be loving like 'God' is, we should all kill each other. *points gun at random person* "I love you! *pulls trigger and sees blood everywhere*
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: velkyn on September 21, 2011, 09:08:38 AM
[Only I did not declare anything to be biblically advocated. I said that the concept, original sin, was NOT biblically advocated and was in fact a concept that was foreign to the scriptural texts. As it pertains to this discussion, there is no "made up whim" that I have attempted to insert.

TOT, what of the verses I mentioned

Quote
We then have Paul claiming that JC was the answer for Adam’s fall.  Romans 3, Romans 5.   Ephesians 2.

I'll add another 1 Corinthians 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.


*if* JC is the answer for Adam's fall, e.g. this fall is what *required* God to send JC to save everyone/or those who he allows to beleive, then we have original sin.    Do you agree that original sin can be safely defined as the inherited state of sin resulting from the consumption of the "apple" in the Garden of Eden? 

If you don't think these verses support original sin, what do they mean? 
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: Truth OT on September 21, 2011, 10:53:58 AM
Mrs. V, just so we're clear and all cards are on the table let me ask you this:

Are you advocating that the Bible teaches the concept of original sin?
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: Omen on September 21, 2011, 10:57:19 AM
Mrs. V, just so we're clear and all cards are on the table let me ask you this:

Are you advocating that the Bible teaches the concept of original sin?

No more then what you're claims of what the biblical 'teachings' teach.
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: velkyn on September 21, 2011, 11:23:27 AM
Mrs. V, just so we're clear and all cards are on the table let me ask you this:

Are you advocating that the Bible teaches the concept of original sin?

I am asking you how these verses are to be interpreted if you don't think the bible teaches original sin.

and "mrs. v"????? ;D
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: Omen on September 21, 2011, 11:33:24 AM
He doesn't want to admit that his claims of biblical teachings are no different from the claims of biblical teachings that other christian belief systems interpret as original sin.
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: JL on September 21, 2011, 11:39:45 AM
If they do in fact exist, i would certainly like to think so.  :laugh:
Of course they exist.  I see these guys everywhere, don't you?
(http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/6/3/2/33632.jpg?v=1)

Fella's face seem to be suffering from constipation and piles  :o

Ok back to topic :)
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: violatedsmurf80 on September 21, 2011, 11:40:34 AM
If there was a concept of original sin the bible would tell Christians to baptize the new born babies. The concept of infant “baptism” is totally foreign to the Holy Scriptures. This practice stems from the erroneous teaching of “original sin.” The Bible does not give one single example or command of any baby being baptized anywhere.
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: Truth OT on September 21, 2011, 12:16:07 PM
Quote
One is punished if one is found guilty. Or one is punished even if one is not guilty. those two claims, in your bible contradict each other. You yourself said “how can someone who didn’t do anything be guilty of it?”  If they aren’t guilty of it why are they being punished?


Your implication is that if one is punished they are being punished due to their guilt. That idea is not necessarily true as parties that are not guilty can often suffer for the actions of an associated party.
The passages we went over that speak of guilt illustrate to the reader that each individual's GUILT will be on that individual and that individual alone. When we consider the punishment aspect mentioned in the passages we can see that the punishment for the actions of the guilty party would in fact affect others who may not have born any guilt.
What you are calling a contradiction, does not appear to be one at all as guilt and punishment are two distinctly different things. What I will say though is that the idea of fairness seems to be thrown out of the window as those not responsible for the ship sinking are being forced to go down with it.
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: Omen on September 21, 2011, 12:23:59 PM
Quote
One is punished if one is found guilty. Or one is punished even if one is not guilty. those two claims, in your bible contradict each other. You yourself said “how can someone who didn’t do anything be guilty of it?”  If they aren’t guilty of it why are they being punished?


Your implication is that if one is punished they are being punished due to their guilt. That idea is not necessarily true

The burden is yours to demonstrate.

Quote
as parties that are not guilty can often suffer for the actions of an associated party.

This has absolutely nothing to do with her statement or the questions that followed her statements, that you selectively omit.


And again, you decided that you need to assume something to make sense of your bible.  How not suprising.  It’s not they have to deal with the ramifications of what the guilty did, God actively punishes them for something they never did.  Why kill David’s son if he did nothing?  Can’t God *not* kill someone for once?   

Now, for those verses that you didn’t bother actually addressing.  We have original sin supported again and again in the NT. we have verses indicating a believe that all are less than pure from “birth” in the OT.  Can you show that the NT and OT don’t “really mean” those things? 


Quote
he passages we went over that speak of guilt illustrate

They do? Where did you show that it 'illustrate to the reader'?

Velkyn is talking about being guilty for something they did not do, your babbling off into a red herring.  Virtually nothing you posted has anything to do with any of the previous questions and challenges, plus you've fallen back to your normal dishonest arguments from authority.. literally making shit up with little to no explanation.
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: albeto on September 21, 2011, 12:58:23 PM
If there was a concept of original sin the bible would tell Christians to baptize the new born babies. The concept of infant “baptism” is totally foreign to the Holy Scriptures. This practice stems from the erroneous teaching of “original sin.” The Bible does not give one single example or command of any baby being baptized anywhere.

Oh ye of little faith.  The bible mentions somewhere about a whole family being baptized so you can safely pretend babies were naturally in that home.  And besides, the same (RCC) counsels that gave you the bible, the same counsels that gave you 100% man 100% god, the same counsels that gave you the Truine God, gave you Original Sin.  Surely god wasn't faking that time.
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: Truth OT on September 21, 2011, 01:00:56 PM
Quote
And again, you decided that you need to assume something to make sense of your bible.  How not suprising.  It’s not they have to deal with the ramifications of what the guilty did, God actively punishes them for something they never did.  Why kill David’s son if he did nothing?  Can’t God *not* kill someone for once?   

Now, for those verses that you didn’t bother actually addressing.  We have original sin supported again and again in the NT. we have verses indicating a believe that all are less than pure from “birth” in the OT.  Can you show that the NT and OT don’t “really mean” those things?


Omen
Quote
The burden is yours to demonstrate.

Let's get some things straight. There is no need or attempt being made of making sense of "my" Bible as it relates to this issue. I do not believe that "my" Bible speaks about original sin as a concept that even exists. My "opponent" is making the argument that "my" Bible does speak of original sin in X, Y, and Z locations, yet the burden of prove is not me to disprove that allogation? Interesting..........
So, here's the situation. You have a person saying that it (original sin) is in there and you have another person saying that it is not in there. Logically, which party bears the burden of proof if their case is to be made? All the "no it's not" party is obligated to do is cross-examine the evidence the "it's in there" party presented so that the jury (the thread viewing public) can determine if the person making the claim about it being in there has the adequate evidence to prove their claim (case).

----
I wasn't gonna do this, but what the heck.
If the above is wrong then I am free to make the following allogation:

Omen behaves like an rude, arrogant, condescending asshole on this forum.

And after having made such an allegation I can DEMAND that Omen provide proof to the contrary and obsolve myself from bearing the burden of proof.
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: Omen on September 21, 2011, 01:13:04 PM
Let's get some things straight. There is no need or attempt being made of making sense of "my" Bible as it relates to this issue.

It is if you are going to assert anything as if it is to be known or understood.  The opposite of not doing this, is literally making up everything purely at whim.  Hence, you hypocritically trying to argue that 'original sin' has no biblical support, while ignoring that your own assertions carry no more supportive explanation than theirs.

Unless you're now going to say that those christians who claim original sin have no need to make sense of "their" bible as it relates to an issue.

Quote
"my" Bible

"YOUR" bible, is irrelevant.  Its a qualification that is in and of itself meaningless, it is subject to fallacy laced responses which you typically fall back on and are precisely what is WRONG with your behavior and post on this forum.  Hence, why your claims are subject to the fallacy of pleading and the fallacies of argument from authority.

You don't get to plead new qualifications without explanation and you are not an established authority on an epistemological system of knowing.  In fact, offering no explanation while at the same time just randomly babbling nonsense, guarantees that you will never be taken seriously and that all of your 'responses' are not answers worth our consideration.

Quote
My "opponent" is making the argument that "my" Bible does speak of original sin in X, Y, and Z locations

And it does to a different theological context, that engages in the same type of dishonest and fallacy laced nonsense that you engage in when you make assertions about the bible.  Saying its "my bible" is meaningless.  It explains nothing.  Which is precisely the problem with special pleading fallacies.

Quote
yet the burden of prove is not me to disprove that allogation

Christian A claims X, Christian B claims Y, both christians claim X and Y using similar fallacies.  Christian A is not proven wrong because christian B claims something different.  Both Christian A and B are wrong because their beliefs are not rational, they are not derived beyond arbitrary whims to presupposed notions of belief.

This is what you don't want to admit too.


Quote
I wasn't gonna do this, but what the heck.
If the above is wrong then I am free to make the following allogation:

Omen behaves like an rude, arrogant, condescending asshole on this forum.

And after having made such an allegation I can DEMAND that Omen provide proof to the contrary and obsolve myself from bearing the burden of proof.

Strawman.

You are not an authority in determining Christian A is wrong because the bible doesn't support their position.  Why? Because the bible doesn't support your position.

If you accept the condition that the lack of support in the bible for christian A's claims render them invalid then YOUR positions on the bible are rendered invalid.
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: violatedsmurf80 on September 21, 2011, 04:09:23 PM
If there was a concept of original sin the bible would tell Christians to baptize the new born babies. The concept of infant “baptism” is totally foreign to the Holy Scriptures. This practice stems from the erroneous teaching of “original sin.” The Bible does not give one single example or command of any baby being baptized anywhere.

Oh ye of little faith.  The bible mentions somewhere about a whole family being baptized so you can safely pretend babies were naturally in that home.  And besides, the same (RCC) counsels that gave you the bible, the same counsels that gave you 100% man 100% god, the same counsels that gave you the Truine God, gave you Original Sin.  Surely god wasn't faking that time.



No were in the bible does it say that we are born into sin because if we were born into sin then, Allow the little children, and don't forbid them to come to me; for to such belongs the Kingdom of Heaven. Matthew 19:14 jesus would not of said this and instead would of said the opposite. Man sin, therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned—Romans 5:12 Notice this does not say men were born into sin. It says death comes because we all sin. Therefore how can there be an Original Sin, unless the bible contradicts it self and we all know that it doesn't ;).

Edit to add: The word “sinned” is an active verb. This means we have an active hand in our own demise
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: Truth OT on September 21, 2011, 04:32:55 PM
Christian A claims X, Christian B claims Y, both christians claim X and Y using similar fallacies.  Christian A is not proven wrong because christian B claims something different.  Both Christian A and B are wrong because their beliefs are not rational, they are not derived beyond arbitrary whims to presupposed notions of belief.

This is what you don't want to admit too.

You are not an authority in determining Christian A is wrong because the bible doesn't support their position.  Why? Because the bible doesn't support your position.

If you accept the condition that the lack of support in the bible for christian A's claims render them invalid then YOUR positions on the bible are rendered invalid.

Are there any claims about the content of the Bible writings that you believe can be made without employing fallacies?

I ask this because in a previous post that caused me to hold my head, you actually stated the exact sentiment I had been arguing for. I suspect that our reasoning for coming to that common conclusion is what you are taking issue with since you cannot reasonably take issue with my conclusion being that you voiced the same one.
So my method, which is what appears to be under attack is what needs to be defended and therefore explained. My method does NOT involve the need for one to believe that the things written are anymore true and historical than what is written of Jhaixus in Petey North's Transformers 2.0 (great, and I do mean great read for anyone into the mythos BTW http://www.tfw2005.com/boards/transformers-fan-fiction/86313-transformers-version-2-0-a.html). What it does involve is looking at the texts and as much as the texts allow, being able to relate what the texts does and does not say. Somethings will be unclear and thus force those that wish to find meaning that may or may not be there to speculate while other ideas, themes, and messages will be adbundantly clear and will require no mental gymnastics to understand.
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: Omen on September 21, 2011, 04:42:53 PM
Are there any claims about the content of the Bible writings that you believe can be made without employing fallacies?

Of course.

I believe the bible claims X, because of Y and it is true because of Z.

Quote
I ask..

No need to qualify it.  If claims have reasonable support to be believed as true, then they should be logically self evident to a degree that you can coherently argue for them.  However, if at any point you require us to suspend rational inquiry and analytical thinking, then you either need to start again or admit your fault.  This doesn't mean that it can't have metaphors, but those metaphors have to at least be reasonable in their explanation and account for where they are contradicted elsewhere.  This also requires you to actively participate in an open, sincere, and honest manner.

My 'problem' with you, is that you are completely and totally separated from any intellectual discourse to validate your claims.  As well as willfully working to be as obscure and dishonest about your position and your ability to justify it as possible.  You avoid questions, you talk around important relevant issues, you omit from other peoples post that which is convenient to your next attempt at another red herring, you make up qualifications as to avoid answering problems but never return to those issues that are so blatantly at odds with logic, and you do everything that makes it impossible to believe or to suggest that you do not or may not do this on purpose.
Title: Re: Original Sin Issue
Post by: rickymooston on September 21, 2011, 05:29:50 PM
The fact of the matter is that there are only 2 possibilities here, either original sin exists or it does not.
There's no magical 3rd or 4th option, these are the only 2.

Hi Truth

Your statement in bold is quite wrong. Here are some possibilities that come to mind:
1) Original sin is a correct doctrine. That is, we are born in sin and blamed already
2) Original sin is an incorrect doctrine
3) The bible is inconsistent. In one place, genesis, it suggests the doctrine of original sin whereas in the other, Issaih, it doesn't
4) Your explanation/understanding of original sin is incorrect. Perhaps original sin doesn't refer to "blame" as much as it does to explaining our inner nature.

I'm sure many other possibilities exist. The question is whether you have the imagination to come up with them.
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: velkyn on September 22, 2011, 10:29:18 AM
Quote
One is punished if one is found guilty. Or one is punished even if one is not guilty. those two claims, in your bible contradict each other. You yourself said “how can someone who didn’t do anything be guilty of it?”  If they aren’t guilty of it why are they being punished?


Your implication is that if one is punished they are being punished due to their guilt. That idea is not necessarily true as parties that are not guilty can often suffer for the actions of an associated party.

The passages we went over that speak of guilt illustrate to the reader that each individual's GUILT will be on that individual and that individual alone. When we consider the punishment aspect mentioned in the passages we can see that the punishment for the actions of the guilty party would in fact affect others who may not have born any guilt.

What you are calling a contradiction, does not appear to be one at all as guilt and punishment are two distinctly different things. What I will say though is that the idea of fairness seems to be thrown out of the window as those not responsible for the ship sinking are being forced to go down with it.
Omen did a good job of commenting on these claims of yours.  I am amused that you claim I make implications when I do not.  I state the facts.  You add on your own claims of implications to try to support your presuppositions. 

My original post is here: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20097.msg443506.html#msg443506 .  I show how your god changes its mind constantly on who gets punished for what reason.  That is the contradiction.  Your god can't make up its mind what it wants to do, are only the guilty punished?  is anyone punished for just shits and giggles?  You are trying your best to ignore this and it's rather a pity since this is a written medium and no playing make believe will make my posts disappear.   


 I'm still waiting for your comments on the verses I posted.  You have made claims.  Now support them and show how I am wrong.  I have shown exactly where the bible supports original sin and how it does this, so your whines about how no one has given you evidence are false and indeed a complete intentional lie from what I can see.  You simply have ignored it and simply say “no it doesn’t” with no evidence of this position.  That’s just gainsaying me and evidently hoping no one will notice you have nothing to rebut my position with.   
Title: Re: Original Sin Issue
Post by: Truth OT on September 22, 2011, 12:00:25 PM
I am saying and supporting that the bible contradicts it self since you can support the idea of original sin and attack it.  You have presented a false dichotomy in order to protect your bible’s supposed coherence.

Quote
According to Ezekiel 18, the soul that is sinning will die! 'So, the son will not be blamed, for his father's unrighteous ways, and the father will not be blamed, for his son's unrighteous ways. Each one's righteous ways will be upon him, and the lawlessness of each are upon their own selves.


Yep, right here we have that only the guilty will be punished, not the innocent.

You have claimed that the text in Ezekiel 18 supports the notion that only the guilty will be punished. Is that what the text says though Mrs. V? It says that the son will not be blamed, for his father's unrighteous ways, and the father will not be blamed, for his son's unrighteous ways. It is discussing culpability (blame), not punishment, yet you, according to you own words above are reading punishment into the text; Why?
I would venture to say that this text you are using to support the position you put forth does not such thing.

Quote
Deut 5: 9 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 10 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.
 

And again here we have the guilty punished, and the innocent as well.

Since this passage basically repeats what was written in Exodus 34, I will just reply to this posting by saying that it appears that you are correct. Both the guilty party and the anccestors of that party who may in fact not be guilty get punished. Thus far, no contradiction........

And in Deut 24, we have this
Quote
16 Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin.



Duet 24 is a part of a long litany of rules that were mentioned beginning in Duet chapter 12. Why is this info relevant? The answer lies in chapter 12, verse 1 which reads: 'Now, these are the rules and decisions that you must be sure to follow in the land that Jehovah the God of your ancestors is giving you as your inheritance, and during the entire time that you will live in the land:
Part of the law of the land that was given to the Children of Israel was this rule that prohibited the people from punishing an innocent party in place of the guilty party. Having let the text establish that, I ask you: Where is the contradiction?

One is punished if one is found guilty.  Or  one is punished even if one is not guilty. those two claims, in your bible contradict each other.
   

The sentence above sums up what you have claimed in reference to this issue, however, your claim that the Bible has made contradictory declarations is something you have failed to give objective evidence and support for.

Psalm 51. Job 25. As you say, how can someone who didn’t do anything be guilty of it? 
Psalm 51 is believed to be a prayer of David where he expresses his sorrow for the wrongs he had done to Uriah and with Bathsheba and petitions God for mercy. How is it at all related to what we are discussing?
 It's interesting that Job 25 is employed as a "proof text" for original sin when in fact the concept of being born in sin and thus blamed already is not mentioned. It reads: 
Then Baldad the Shuhite said,  'What kind of insight and fear does he have… this one who makes it sound so important?  Let us never assume, that we'll be saved from the robbers, and that we'll never be ambushed. 'For, how can a man claim he's righteous to God; how can a man born of woman, try to make himself clean? For, He orders the moon and it doesn't shine, and even stars are impure before Him. But all of mankind is rotten, and the sons of men are just worms.'
Additionally, what is left out is that this passage is in the midst of a broader scriptural text where Job and his boys are in effect having a back and forth discussion and expressing disagreement with each other. What the entire chapter is is nothing more than Baldad's response to what was said by Job in the previous chapters.

We then have Paul claiming that JC was the answer for Adam’s fall.  Romans 3, Romans 5.   Ephesians 2.

Okay, now this is a new argument as the issue of original sin is not addressed here but rather the idea that one person's righteousness can be used as "credit" for others. Back to Ezekiel we go:

'So, the son will not be blamed, for his father's unrighteous ways, and the father will not be blamed, for his son's unrighteous ways. Each one's righteous ways will be upon him, and the lawlessness of each are upon their own selves. 21 But, if the lawless one should turn from wicked ways, and start to keep My Commandments, and become righteous, merciful, and just, he will be granted life… he will live and not die. 22 For, all his sins will then be forgotten (as many as he might have done)… for the righteous things that he did, he will live!
Correct me if I have jumped the gun, but I am assuming that you are insinuating that the words of Paul in Romans contradicts what the above passage in Ezekiel declared. Let's see if that's the case. To Romans 3 we go:

9 So, is there anything that makes us [Jews] better than [gentiles]? Not at all; for we have proven to you that both Jews and Greeks are sinners! 10 Why, it's written:
'No one is righteous… not one!.........
19 Now, we know that everything the Law says was meant for those who were under the Law… it stopped every mouth and made the whole world deserving of God's punishment. 20 But no flesh will be called righteous before Him by obeying the Law, since the Law is just the understanding of sin. 21 But now, the righteousness of God can be seen in the absence of the Law, and the Law and the Prophets are witnesses to this. For, the Law and the Prophets testified 22 that God's righteousness would come to all those who believe and show their faith in Jesus the Anointed One… so there's really no difference between us, 23 because we all sin and fall short of God's glory! 24 Thus, being called righteous is a gift that He kindly gives through the ransom that was paid by the Anointed Jesus. 25 For, God sent him here as a gift, so that when we have faith in his blood, we can be forgiven for the sins we've committed in the past… 26 back when God was just tolerating us. And this is what allows us to look into His righteous ways today. Yes, He proves Himself righteous by calling [all] those who have faith in Jesus righteous! 27 So, where is our reason for boasting? It's gone! Does it come from our doing what the Law tells us to do? No, it comes through the Law of Faith, 28 because we believe that a man is called righteous due to his faith, so he doesn't have to follow the Law. 29 [Do you think that He] is only the God of the Jews… isn't He also [the God of] of people of all nations? Yes! [He's the God] of people of the nations also! 30 So, God is really the One who calls both the circumcised and the uncircumcised righteous because of their faith.

Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: velkyn on September 23, 2011, 08:39:24 AM
TOT,

It says various places that *only* the guilty are punished and then it contradicts that by saying that the innocent are punished too for being the children, etc.  You can’t have it both ways.  It’s like me saying that “only those who have red hair will be given kittens today” and then saying somewhere else “everyone will be given kittens today”.  Which can be taken as the true statement, TOT since both can’t happen at the same time?  And this contradiction is coming supposedly from a being that omnipotent, omniscient, and unchanging. 
   
And yes, TOT, I am quite comfortable in saying that’s what the text from Ezekiel says in the context of the chapter.  Why? Because the chapter talks about sinning, blame *and* punishment.  Let me share with you the verses right around the one you picked. 
Quote
Ezekiel 18:17 He will not die for his father’s sin; he will surely live. 18 But his father will die for his own sin, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was wrong among his people.
 19 “Yet you ask, ‘Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?’ Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. 20 The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.[/b]
 21 “But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, that person will surely live; they will not die. 22 None of the offenses they have committed will be remembered against them. Because of the righteous things they have done, they will live. 23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?
 24 “But if a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked person does, will they live? None of the righteous things that person has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness they are guilty of and because of the sins they have committed, they will die. - NIV

We have God discussing the sin, the blame and who gets punished and why.  It is not only talking about blame.  If you do the crime, then you are punished e.g. you die.  If you do not do the crime, you are not punished. 

Now, in Deuteronomy, it says the opposite.  You don’t do the crime, you are punished *and* if you do the crime you are punished.   There is a contradiction since in Ezekiel, it says that *only* those who do the crime are punished.  You are then wrong when you claim there is no contradiction.  Again, for an analogy,  if I say that “only those people who first names start with “A” will be killed” does this mean the same as “everyone will be killed”?  It’s that simple, TOT.  Does it mean the same thing or not? 

I agree, Deut 24 is still going on with the list that starts in Deut 12. Yep, God sure does say follow those rules.  And we have your god punishing the children of a sinner for sins they never did in Deut 5.  We have in Ezekiel that God says that this is never to be done by him, that he would *not* punish someone for a crime they didn’t do.  Again we have in Deut 24 again that it should not be done.  But God says he does it anyway in Deut 5.  So which does God do, TOT?  Does he do as he says in Ezekiel 18 or Deuteronomy 5?  I’ll even keep the verses in and repeat those from Ezekiel to contrast them.

Quote
Deut 5: 9 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 10 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.
 

Quote
20 The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.

And again you claim that I haven’t given any objective evidence and support for.  Well, just look above and you’ll see as good as I can make it from a human being, assuming you mean objective to be “expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations”.  I find this an accurate depiction of what the Bible is intending making an effort to only consider what the Bible directly says.  I am wondering if you think your interpretation is better than mine and for what reasons. 

And now about Psalm 51.  If you would look back at the post, this was in response to your request “As far as the Bible writings advocating original sin, please, do tell why you feel this way.”  I’m sorry if it was confusing but my response was meant to be to your claims that the bible does not say that the sins are put on the children and this was going back to the idea of original sin.  Original sin is based on passing down of guilt and punishment to those who did nothing, very much like in Deut 5.  In Psalm 51 it says “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.”  How would this work if there is no sin passed from Adam?  How do zygotes sin? 

As for Job 25, it can also be written like this “How then can a mortal be righteous before God? How can one born of woman be pure? If even the moon is not bright and the stars are not pure in his eyes, 6 how much less a mortal, who is but a maggot—  a human being, who is only a worm!”  Now is Balad wrong (in the context of the bible of course)?

But let’s say you’re right.  Balad was just talking.  However, in Job 32 we have his friends ending the conversation since Job was “because he was righteous in his own eyes.”  Then we have Elihu who says again that Job is wrong to claim to be pure and sinless. Elihu claims he has perfect knowledge.  However, we see at the beginning of the story, Job is just the best thing out there.  Then we have God himself talking, repeating the same thing Elihu has said.  “Job 40:8 Would you discredit my justice?  Would you condemn me to justify yourself?”   God is okay with what Elihu has said about him: “He repays everyone for what they have done; he brings on them what their conduct deserves. 12 It is unthinkable that God would do wrong,    that the Almighty would pervert justice.”  But as we can see from the very beginning “This man was blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil.”  that God is indeed perverting justice by allowing Job to be tormented on a bet and for allowing Job’s family to be murdered.  Again, where is this god that doesn’t punish others for someone else’s sin?  Where is the god that doesn’t punish people on a bet? 

I find it hilarious that you now want to say that the verses from Paul are only about using JC’s righteousness as a “credit” against the sin of others.  The problem with this is that why does this righteousness of JC’s need to be used as a credit against what sin? Oh yes, the sin that came from the fall of Adam.  You can re-cite Ezekiel as much as you’d like but that doesn’t change the fact that there are contradictions.  Yes, Ezekiel says that God doesn’t blame or punish people for someone else’s sins, but Deut says he does.  You ignore one in favor of the other and I have yet to see why one version is the only “right” one.   

As for Romans 3 and 5 and Ephesians and 1 Corinthians, this is in response to your claims that original sin is not in the Bible.  It does not address the idea of what God does about sinners and punishment, although they can be related issues.  I suppose we should have discussed these separately and it would have been much clearer.

We have Romans 3, which says as you quoted, that no one is righteous.  To me this seems to reinforce the idea that we see through the bible that everyone is impure, not righteous, etc from conception (as what Psalm 51 says).  We have Paul saying that only believe in JC will save a damned soul and that indeed all are damned. 

We have Romans 5 which says
Quote
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—  13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.  15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ! 
Again, this seems to state clearly that through Adam’s fall, all of humanity is punished for one man’s crime.  This is how original sin is defined (and it does go back to does God revenge himself only on the sinner or on whomever else he feels like?) 

The verses in Ephesians also seem to support this
Quote
3 All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. 4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.
We deserve God’s wrath by our nature.  Who created that nature and by what events?  God and then the fall.

Then we have 1 Corinthians 15
Quote
  20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

TOT, I’ve given you verses and the context behind them and how I see them working.   Is this objective evidence? Well, it’s the verses of your holy book, and the context they are in and the reasons I have come to these conclusions.  In that we can’t read the minds of the authors, this seems to be all we have to work with, we know this is a body of works that often doesn’t make any sense since they were put together piecemeal across a great span of time and through many variations in belief.  That’s my position. 

If one works from the idea that there should be some coherence to these stories because of some magical influence, then there should be no contradictions and no presuppositions required to start from.  One should be able to work from beginning to end and have one and only one story with a god that acts in a dependable way, if this god is to be the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, just, unchanging being that Christians do seem to mostly agree upon. We don’t see that.     
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: ungod on October 21, 2011, 10:08:25 AM
They would interpret that (with their magic decoder rings) as going straight to heaven after they die (just with their souls, but their bodies will rise upon Christ's return as stated in 1 Thessalonians).
So, you die at age 98, and your soul goes off to heaven. Later, Jesus returns, and your body rises up. So, there you are, back in your 98 year old decrepit
body, for all eternity.
Meanwhile, your cousin, who died at 18 in a car accident, gets back his hunky, at the peak of life body, to keep for eternity.

Hmmm....does this sound fair?
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: curiousgirl on October 21, 2011, 01:27:57 PM
They would interpret that (with their magic decoder rings) as going straight to heaven after they die (just with their souls, but their bodies will rise upon Christ's return as stated in 1 Thessalonians).
So, you die at age 98, and your soul goes off to heaven. Later, Jesus returns, and your body rises up. So, there you are, back in your 98 year old decrepit
body, for all eternity.
Meanwhile, your cousin, who died at 18 in a car accident, gets back his hunky, at the peak of life body, to keep for eternity.

Hmmm....does this sound fair?

LOL I know, right?
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: Gnu Ordure on October 21, 2011, 02:24:06 PM
Raymond (#33):
Quote
One of my first real eye-openers to the vile nature of the Christian god was back when I was about 15... Sat in on a buddy of mine's after-school youth group (hey, they had free pizza. Cut me some slack!)...

The slaughter of Egypt's first born. Fucking IN.EX.CUSE.AB.LE.

Because Yahweh *MADE* Pharoah (just one guy, mind you), *MADE* him be a dick to Moses (so much for free will!), he then straight-up MURDERS THE FIRST BORN CHILDREN OF AN ENTIRE NATION.

No, but I'm sure Yahweh really wuved all those widdle babies and toddlers to pieces. Really.

Little bite sized chopped up dog kibbly pieces.
(I admit this is pedantic, but I'm feeling pedantic, so sue me).

I always thought that this slaughter concerned killing children, but I realized recently that it doesn't:

29And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle.

So the people killed were of any age; adults of 60 or 70 would die, if they were the first-born. Only a small proportion would be children.

If we assume that each couple in Egypt had two children on average, then half the entire population were killed.

Sorry. Do carry on.
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: Brakeman on October 21, 2011, 02:50:49 PM
Yes GNU, god just happened to value the first born in the bronze age, just like ancient man did, I mean what are the odds of that! 100 trillion to one I'd bet!
Damn those 2cd born, Damn those 3rd born, damn those women! Of course what would hurt the Pharaoh's Egypt the most would be the precious first born. Though out the bible their is preference to the first born .. Why would a god give preferential treatment to the first borne?

Well, other than the obvious fact that he was made up by superstitious goat herders..
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: ungod on October 24, 2011, 02:47:26 PM
Raymond (#33):
Quote
One of my first real eye-openers to the vile nature of the Christian god was back when I was about 15... Sat in on a buddy of mine's after-school youth group (hey, they had free pizza. Cut me some slack!)...


You sold your soul for a PIZZA?? Oh my Gawd!  ;D
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: Samuelxcs on October 26, 2011, 08:50:27 AM
Quote
One of my first real eye-openers to the vile nature of the Christian god was back when I was about 15... Sat in on a buddy of mine's after-school youth group (hey, they had free pizza. Cut me some slack!)...

Quote
You sold your soul for a PIZZA?? Oh my Gawd!  ;D

Someone has sold there soul....for a PIZZA?! o.O
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: One Above All on October 26, 2011, 11:11:28 AM
Quote
One of my first real eye-openers to the vile nature of the Christian god was back when I was about 15... Sat in on a buddy of mine's after-school youth group (hey, they had free pizza. Cut me some slack!)...

Quote
You sold your soul for a PIZZA?? Oh my Gawd!  ;D

Someone has sold there their soul....for a PIZZA?! o.O

You wouldn't believe the offers I get sometimes.
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: ungod on October 27, 2011, 01:51:56 AM
Quote
One is punished if one is found guilty. Or one is punished even if one is not guilty. those two claims, in your bible contradict each other. You yourself said “how can someone who didn’t do anything be guilty of it?”  If they aren’t guilty of it why are they being punished?


Your implication is that if one is punished they are being punished due to their guilt. That idea is not necessarily true as parties that are not guilty can often suffer for the actions of an associated party.
The passages we went over that speak of guilt illustrate to the reader that each individual's GUILT will be on that individual and that individual alone. When we consider the punishment aspect mentioned in the passages we can see that the punishment for the actions of the guilty party would in fact affect others who may not have born any guilt.
What you are calling a contradiction, does not appear to be one at all as guilt and punishment are two distinctly different things. What I will say though is that the idea of fairness seems to be thrown out of the window as those not responsible for the ship sinking are being forced to go down with it.
Poor Jesus, punished for the sins of mankind! And this injustice was planned by God! But wait - Jesus IS God, so God was really punishing hisself! But, God's all-powerful, so He wouldn't feel the punishment anyway, unless He wanted to.
Of course, this all happened according to God's plan. Why would a perfect, infallible God plan to punish Hisself for the sins committed by His creation according to His plan?

My head hurts.
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: Truth OT on October 27, 2011, 11:01:17 AM
Poor Jesus, punished for the sins of mankind! And this injustice was planned by God! But wait - Jesus IS God, so God was really punishing hisself! But, God's all-powerful, so He wouldn't feel the punishment anyway, unless He wanted to.
Of course, this all happened according to God's plan. Why would a perfect, infallible God plan to punish Hisself for the sins committed by His creation according to His plan?

My head hurts.

On guard Ungod! Seeing as to the fact that you quoted me, then posted as you did, I get the feeling you're trying to start something with me over the issue of Jesus' supposed deity and how that concept makes God and God's supposed plan look silly. Am I correct in gauging your intent?

If not, then ignore the remainder, but if so, here goes:

A. Take an Advil and get some rest

B. The concept that Jesus was God is terribly flawed

C. Most likely, Jesus was a man that was beleived by many to fit the bill of God's Anointed One for Israel that was supposed to come on the scene in the early to mid 1st century as per their prophets. Jesus believed this as well and was willing to die becuase he believed that his obedience unto death would be the catalyst that would prompt not only his resurrection from the dead by God, but also his ascension to the age lasting possition of king of kings and lord of lords.

D. After the life, death, and reported resurrection and ascension of Jesus, various believers in him began to deify him in memory.

E. In the end, the living Jesus will have to hand over the kingdom he's been made king over to God and everything that is will be consumed by and become one with God per it's plan. Which ultimately means that God's plan was to eventually become a part of reality so that He can exist within space and time and not be resigned to the spiritual or imperceivable realm. God's plan was to become all but needed a process by which He could insure that only the qualities He desired for Himself and nothing He despised would be available when He becomes all in all.

F. You must understand that when I get this script to the studios that I am gonna enlist the services of Michael Bay, George Lucus, and Stephen Spielberg and ima be rich BITCH!!!
Title: Re: Original Sin Issue
Post by: ungod on October 28, 2011, 08:58:28 AM
So, God is really the One who calls both the circumcised and the uncircumcised righteous because of their faith.

Well, if they're both equally righteous, then why would anyone be stupid enough to go through the
painful and risky surgical procedure? DUH!
 :? :? :?
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: idontknow on November 02, 2011, 02:51:10 PM
I admit that I did not read every reply in this thread - or even look at other threads - so forgive me if other Christians have already made this point, but I do think it is somewhat of a straw-man argument to say that God is all-loving.

No verse in the Bible says that God is all-loving. He hates too. If he were all-loving, he would not hate at all.
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: One Above All on November 02, 2011, 02:57:49 PM
No verse in the Bible says that God is all-loving. He hates too. If he were all-loving, he would not hate at all.

Tell that to other theists.
PS: Why would you worship a being like that?
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: idontknow on November 02, 2011, 03:00:59 PM
No verse in the Bible says that God is all-loving. He hates too. If he were all-loving, he would not hate at all.

Tell that to other theists.
PS: Why would you worship a being like that?

I have told that to other theists. One of my best friends is a Deist, and he didn't know there was no verse in the Bible that says God is all-loving. He was a little surprised and agreed with me that it's therefore a straw-man argument.

It would trouble me more if God were all-loving. Think about it. That would mean he would have to love everything that happens. I'm glad he hates evil.
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: One Above All on November 02, 2011, 03:04:17 PM
I have told that to other theists. One of my best friends is a Deist, and he didn't know there was no verse in the Bible that says God is all-loving. He was a little surprised and agreed with me that it's therefore a straw-man argument.

Not a strawman. A strawman would be to take something that theists say and twist it so that it can be easily debunked. Many theists claim that their god is all-loving; this topic was my attempt to show them that they're wrong.

It would trouble me more if God were all-loving. Think about it. That would mean he would have to love everything that happens. I'm glad he hates evil.

If we're talking about the god of the Bible, he created evil in the first place. He is responsible for it.
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: idontknow on November 02, 2011, 03:09:33 PM
I have told that to other theists. One of my best friends is a Deist, and he didn't know there was no verse in the Bible that says God is all-loving. He was a little surprised and agreed with me that it's therefore a straw-man argument.

Not a strawman. A strawman would be to take something that theists say and twist it so that it can be easily debunked. Many theists claim that their god is all-loving; this topic was my attempt to show them that they're wrong.

It would trouble me more if God were all-loving. Think about it. That would mean he would have to love everything that happens. I'm glad he hates evil.

If we're talking about the god of the Bible, he created evil in the first place. He is responsible for it.

Fair enough, I'll concede it's not a straw-man as to all Christians. Would you concede that it is a straw-man as to some of them?

I'll also concede your next two points, that God created evil and that he is therefore responsible for it (assuming we're taking what the Bible says as the premise). If we take what the Bible says as the premise, though, then we must also conclude that God has already held himself fully responsible for all evil on the cross.

In other words, if Jesus really is God incarnate, as the Bible says, then God did not exempt himself from suffering. He bore more of it than anyone.
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: One Above All on November 02, 2011, 03:13:59 PM
Fair enough, I'll concede it's not a straw-man as to all Christians. Would you concede that it is a straw-man as to some of them?

No, I would not. This is not meant for christians who don't believe god is all-loving; that would just be stupid.

I'll also concede your next two points, that God created evil and that he is therefore responsible for it (assuming we're taking what the Bible says as the premise). If we take what the Bible says as the premise, though, then we must also conclude that God has already held himself fully responsible for all evil on the cross.

No, he didn't. If he had, he would've used his omnipotence to oh, I dunno... eliminate evil forever?

In other words, if Jesus really is God incarnate, as the Bible says, then God did not exempt himself from suffering. He bore more of it than anyone.

He most certainly did not. According to the Bible there are people burning in hell right now and will continue to be there for all eternity because your god created both hell and evil. He spent two days dead and then went right back to being omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: idontknow on November 02, 2011, 03:33:23 PM
No, I would not. This is not meant for christians who don't believe god is all-loving; that would just be stupid.

Let's begin with a definition if you don't mind.

"Straw man. This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't actually made..."

(From: http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Straw%20man ; please let me know if that definition is unacceptable to you.)

I, and many other Christians, are not making the argument that God is all-loving. The Bible itself is not making that argument. If you want to make that argument to a Unitarian-Universalist, be my guest lol.

No, he didn't. If he had, he would've used his omnipotence to oh, I dunno... eliminate evil forever?

Taking the Bible as written, again, he will do that one day in the future. But that doesn't mean he hasn't already accounted for all evil, including the evil that hasn't even happened yet. I trust you see the distinction.

He most certainly did not. According to the Bible there are people burning in hell right now and will continue to be there for all eternity because your god created both hell and evil. He spent two days dead and then went right back to being omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

Just because people reject the Gospel doesn't mean God didn't pay for their sins too. God punished Jesus for the sins of all.
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: One Above All on November 02, 2011, 03:44:00 PM
No, I would not. This is not meant for christians who don't believe god is all-loving; that would just be stupid.

Let's begin with a definition if you don't mind.
<snip>

Actually, let's begin with reading what I wrote. I've put the relevant part in bold.

Taking the Bible as written, again, he will do that one day in the future. But that doesn't mean he hasn't already accounted for all evil, including the evil that hasn't even happened yet. I trust you see the distinction.

Oh, he will do that one day in the future. I'm sorry that now is such a bad time for him, but now is when people are dying because of evil people. In fact, people have been dying because of evil people since about... 6000-10000[1] years ago.

Just because people reject the Gospel doesn't mean God didn't pay for their sins too. God punished Jesus for the sins of all.

God made Jesus (himself) spend a bad weekend in a cave.[2] Then he rose to supreme overlord of the entire universe. If that deal was available to everyone, I'd take it in a heartbeat.
 1. Assuming creationists' claims are correct.
 2. Boo-hoo.
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: idontknow on November 02, 2011, 04:03:11 PM
So now you're saying the bolded language is a concession? I was trying to read it in a way consistent with the prefatory refusal to make the concession.

But that's of little significance.

Now wouldn't be a bad time for God to end evil. It would be a bad time for you, though. He is slow to anger. He is patient. He's giving you every opportunity in the world to accept the Gospel so that when you die, you'll have no excuse for rejecting it.

Your last point is merely another straw man. I seriously doubt whether you genuinely believe any Christian is making the argument that Jesus simply spent a bad weekend in a cave. That is a gross mis-characterization and weakens your credibility. You can do better than that. (And according to the Bible, Jesus was already "supreme overlord." He didn't become that only after his "bad weekend.")
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: One Above All on November 02, 2011, 04:11:38 PM
So now you're saying the bolded language is a concession? I was trying to read it in a way consistent with the prefatory refusal to make the concession.

The bold part is a clear statement that this argument is only directed at christians who claim that their god is all-loving.

Now wouldn't be a bad time for God to end evil. It would be a bad time for you, though. He is slow to anger. He is patient. He's giving you every opportunity in the world to accept the Gospel so that when you die, you'll have no excuse for rejecting it.

I'm sorry, I don't speak preacher. If you have any evidence for your specific version of a god that cannot be used as evidence for any other deity, feel free to show it.

Your last point is merely another straw man.

No, it's what is written. Jesus was dead for two days (a weekend) and rose from the dead. Doesn't sound that bad.

I seriously doubt whether you genuinely believe any Christian is making the argument that Jesus simply spent a bad weekend in a cave. That is a gross mis-characterization and weakens your credibility. You can do better than that. (And according to the Bible, Jesus was already "supreme overlord." He didn't become that only after his "bad weekend.")

See above. So all he really did was spend two days dead. Surely that makes up for creating evil and being responsible for millions of deaths.
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: ungod on November 02, 2011, 04:28:38 PM
No, he didn't. If he had, he would've used his omnipotence to oh, I dunno... eliminate evil forever?

Taking the Bible as written, again, he will do that one day in the future.

Since there are evil souls who are burning in Hell FOR ALL ETERNITY, will this act of God take place before, or after, the end of eternity? Any idea how long that will be?
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: idontknow on November 02, 2011, 04:41:15 PM
Since there are evil souls who are burning in Hell FOR ALL ETERNITY, will this act of God take place before, or after, the end of eternity? Any idea how long that will be?

It will take place before the end of eternity lol. And no, I'm no Camping.
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: idontknow on November 02, 2011, 04:51:37 PM
The bold part is a clear statement that this argument is only directed at christians who claim that their god is all-loving.
Ok, then we're just in semantics. You don't want to call it a concession. Call it whatever you want lol.
I'm sorry, I don't speak preacher. If you have any evidence for your specific version of a god that cannot be used as evidence for any other deity, feel free to show it.
Let's see if you'll go along with the following definition of evidence: "all the means by which any alleged matter of fact, the truth of which is submitted to investigation at judicial trial, is established or disproved" (16 A.2d 80, 89), "[which] includes the testimony of witnesses, introduction of records, documents, exhibits, objects, or any other probative matter offered for the purpose of inducing belief in the party's contention by the fact-finder." Gifis, Steven H. Barron's Law Dictionary, 5th.

If not, I understand. I have no interest in debating the existence of God. That's almost always completely pointless. But I refer you to that definition of evidence to emphasize that oral testimony from witnesses is important in every legal system. So are records.
No, it's what is written. Jesus was dead for two days (a weekend) and rose from the dead. Doesn't sound that bad.
Gross understatement. Jesus didn't pay for our sins while he was dead but on the cross.
See above. So all he really did was spend two days dead. Surely that makes up for creating evil and being responsible for millions of deaths.
See above. Gross understatement. Jesus didn't account for all evil by being dead for two days but by incurring an eternity of punishment on the cross.
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: One Above All on November 02, 2011, 04:55:19 PM
Let's see if you'll go along with the following definition of evidence: "all the means by which any alleged matter of fact, the truth of which is submitted to investigation at judicial trial, is established or disproved" (16 A.2d 80, 89), "[which] includes the testimony of witnesses, introduction of records, documents, exhibits, objects, or any other probative matter offered for the purpose of inducing belief in the party's contention by the fact-finder." Gifis, Steven H. Barron's Law Dictionary, 5th.

If not, I understand. I have no interest in debating the existence of God. That's almost always completely pointless. But I refer you to that definition of evidence to emphasize that oral testimony from witnesses is important in every legal system. So are records.

If you have no interest in debating the existence of your god, we're done on that subject.

See above. Gross understatement. Jesus didn't account for all evil by being dead for two days but by incurring an eternity of punishment on the cross.

If it really was an "eternity of punishment", he'd still be on the cross. Guess what? He's not.
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: idontknow on November 02, 2011, 05:06:58 PM
If you have no interest in debating the existence of your god, we're done on that subject.
Agreed.
If it really was an "eternity of punishment", he'd still be on the cross. Guess what? He's not.
You know, the funny thing is God invented time too. If he wanted to compress an eternity into three hours, he could do that, because he's omnipotent.
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: One Above All on November 02, 2011, 05:10:00 PM
You know, the funny thing is God invented time too. If he wanted to compress an eternity into three hours, he could do that, because he's omnipotent.

You know what's even funnier? The fact that the Bible mentions nothing of what you claim.
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: jynnan tonnix on November 02, 2011, 05:13:33 PM
You know, the funny thing is God invented time too. If he wanted to compress an eternity into three hours, he could do that, because he's omnipotent.

You know what's even funnier? The fact that the Bible mentions nothing of what you claim.

I've got to admit, though, that I haven't seen that particular take on it before. Whether or not it means I've been living under a rock, I don't know. It doesn't seem to be strictly Biblical, though. Is there any verse or interpretation to back that up?
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: idontknow on November 02, 2011, 05:17:57 PM
Now from the sixth hour until the ninth hour there was darkness over all the land. (Matthew 27:45 NKJV)

Now when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. (Mark 15:33 NKJV)

Now it was about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. Then the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was torn in two. And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, He said,  “Father,  ‘into Your hands I commit My spirit.’ ” Having said this, He breathed His last.
 So when the centurion saw what had happened, he glorified God, saying, “Certainly this was a righteous Man!” And the whole crowd who came together to that sight, seeing what had been done, beat their breasts and returned. (Luke 23:44-48 NKJV)

Surely He has borne our griefs And carried our sorrows; Yet we esteemed Him stricken, Smitten by God, and afflicted. But He  was  wounded for our transgressions,  He was  bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace  was  upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, every one, to his own way; And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He opened not His mouth; He was led as a lamb to the slaughter, And as a sheep before its shearers is silent, So He opened not His mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment, And who will declare His generation? For He was cut off from the land of the living; For the transgressions of My people He was stricken. And they made His grave with the wicked— But with the rich at His death, Because He had done no violence, Nor  was any  deceit in His mouth. Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him; He has put  Him  to grief. When You make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see  His  seed, He shall prolong  His  days, And the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand. (Isaiah 53:4-10 NKJV)
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: One Above All on November 02, 2011, 05:20:02 PM
Still not seeing the "eternity in three hours" bit. All that I see is "typical (for the time) painful execution for sins God caused himself".
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: jynnan tonnix on November 02, 2011, 05:28:41 PM
I don't see it either. The only thing it seems to say is that a supremely innocent man suffered for three hours. Not meaning to be obtuse here, but where is there any indication that an eternity was encompassed within that timespan?
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: idontknow on November 02, 2011, 05:30:12 PM
See the bolded language from the Isaiah passage.
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: One Above All on November 02, 2011, 05:31:47 PM
See the bolded language from the Isaiah passage.

I saw it. It says that Jesus was punished for our misdeeds[1], but nothing about "eternity in three hours".
 1. Which, by the way, is grossly unfair, but that's a discussion for another time.
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: idontknow on November 02, 2011, 05:32:53 PM
1 John 2:2
And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

"The iniquity of us all." Sins of "the whole world." When else do you suppose Jesus paid for those?
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: One Above All on November 02, 2011, 05:34:13 PM
1 John 2:2
And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

"The iniquity of us all." Sins of "the whole world." When else do you suppose Jesus paid for those?

During the finite three hours he was on the cross?
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: ungod on November 02, 2011, 05:34:24 PM
If you have no interest in debating the existence of your god, we're done on that subject.
Agreed.
If it really was an "eternity of punishment", he'd still be on the cross. Guess what? He's not.
You know, the funny thing is God invented time too. If he wanted to compress an eternity into three hours, he could do that, because he's omnipotent.
Gee, how does he do that? And how do you know - have you observed it? Or did you just make that up?
Since God lives outside of spacetime, how does he interact with time? Isn't there a barrier at the edge of time, like a black hole event horizon?
And, if God is omnipotent, howcum He can be defeated by Iron chariots?
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: idontknow on November 02, 2011, 05:37:21 PM
And, if God is omnipotent, howcum He can be defeated by Iron chariots?

Matthew 13:58
Now He did not do many mighty works there because of their unbelief.
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: jynnan tonnix on November 02, 2011, 05:38:12 PM
But, being omnipotent, he'd also have the ability to compress all the iniquities of the world's people into 3 hours...and one would imagine that the creator of a universe would know something about efficiency.
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: ungod on November 02, 2011, 05:43:14 PM
1 John 2:2
And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

"The iniquity of us all." Sins of "the whole world." When else do you suppose Jesus paid for those?

Doin the Fundy Shuffle are ya! Meanwhile, where's the "eternity compressed into three hours" quote?

 &) :police: :laugh: :laugh:
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: ungod on November 02, 2011, 05:46:46 PM
1 John 2:2
And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

Well then, I guess nobody is going to Hell, since everybody's sins have been atoned for. Place must be empty. Now why would an omniscient god build a place he has no use for?
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: curiousgirl on November 02, 2011, 06:12:55 PM

Matthew 13:58
Now He did not do many mighty works there because of their unbelief.

Actually, that is a bit too convenient. It would be more logical (see Occam's razor) that God did not do the works because he does not exist. Unless you want to convince us otherwise.
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: Brakeman on November 02, 2011, 06:14:12 PM
That sure takes the steam out of Pascal's wager, if an eternity of hell is similarly compressed into three hours, then it wouldn't be quite so bad..
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: Brakeman on November 02, 2011, 06:18:50 PM
I think this is the quote he intended:

Mark 6:5

King James Version (KJV)
(about Jesus)
 5 And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.


[Evidently there the people had seen many magic tricks by hucksters before and were not so gullible.)
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: albeto on November 02, 2011, 11:33:44 PM
And, if God is omnipotent, howcum He can be defeated by Iron chariots?

Matthew 13:58
Now He did not do many mighty works there because of their unbelief.

So God's power comes by people believing in him? 
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: One Above All on November 03, 2011, 06:53:19 AM
And, if God is omnipotent, howcum He can be defeated by Iron chariots?

Matthew 13:58
Now He did not do many mighty works there because of their unbelief.

A god whose power is limited by people's belief in it? That explains why he's so insecure.
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: screwtape on November 03, 2011, 07:20:52 AM
See the bolded language from the Isaiah passage.

Isaiah was before jesus H.  In fact, it was 500-700 years before jesus H.  For that to be a relevant passage, you have to make the case that it was being written about him.


1 John 2:2
And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.

"The iniquity of us all." Sins of "the whole world." When else do you suppose Jesus paid for those?

Yes, it says that.  But you are doing apologetics.  That is, you assume your conclusion to be true and then make the explanation produce that outcome.



Matthew 13:58
Now He did not do many mighty works there because of their unbelief.

Is that like those kung fu masters who kick the snot out of their students with invisible "ki", yet it has no effect whatsoever on people who are not students?   Seems like a cop out to me.  An omnipotent god's magic should not hinge on belief.
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: dloubet on November 06, 2011, 04:49:47 PM
Quote
Matthew 13:58
Now He did not do many mighty works there because of their unbelief.

Dude! You just reduced your god to Tinkerbell!

You really want to stick to that story?
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: Gnu Ordure on November 06, 2011, 05:43:49 PM
Denis/Screwtape/Lucifer,

I read the Matthew quote to mean that Jesus chose not to do his stuff (because they were unbelievers), not that he was unable to.

<thinks...> On the other hand, surely the unbelievers were the very people his 'mighty works' should have been aimed at? Another hole in the christian narrative....
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: riley2112 on November 07, 2011, 12:31:16 AM
But, if God loved us soooo much why would he cast in to hell for ETERNITY.  I have a 7 month old son and if he were to die today, according to the Bible, he would go to hell.  What did he do that was so bad?  Yes, he goes to our entertainment center and pulls out all of my PS3 games on a daily basis.  Yes, he has started reaching into his diaper and playing with his poo. And yes, he throws up on me at least once a week, but none of those things deserve an eternity... much less one second in hell.  If God is our father, than he is the worst father that has ever lived.
I have posted in other areas here and I am always told to post some source of where my information comes from. If I post anything that says God is real, without posting some sort of proof, then I am preaching, and that is against the rules..lol.. however putting something against God on here with out quoting your sources is OK. I am not asking anyone to believe or not believe but it seems to me that the deck is kinda stacked against the believer here.. It also seems to me that it is easy to tell when someone posting has really not studied the source and studying the source is different than reading through it and believing you are smart enough to understand what it mean the first time ... just saying.. OK , now rip me apart..lol
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: albeto on November 07, 2011, 02:16:26 AM
I have posted in other areas here and I am always told to post some source of where my information comes from. If I post anything that says God is real, without posting some sort of proof, then I am preaching, and that is against the rules..lol.. however putting something against God on here with out quoting your sources is OK. I am not asking anyone to believe or not believe but it seems to me that the deck is kinda stacked against the believer here.. It also seems to me that it is easy to tell when someone posting has really not studied the source and studying the source is different than reading through it and believing you are smart enough to understand what it mean the first time ... just saying.. OK , now rip me apart..lol

In what way does this answer the question?
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: velkyn on November 07, 2011, 11:19:04 AM
I have posted in other areas here and I am always told to post some source of where my information comes from. If I post anything that says God is real, without posting some sort of proof, then I am preaching, and that is against the rules..lol.. however putting something against God on here with out quoting your sources is OK. I am not asking anyone to believe or not believe but it seems to me that the deck is kinda stacked against the believer here.. It also seems to me that it is easy to tell when someone posting has really not studied the source and studying the source is different than reading through it and believing you are smart enough to understand what it mean the first time ... just saying.. OK , now rip me apart..lol

Well, riley, the deck is always stacked against a theist when it comes to reality.  None of you, be you Christian, Jew, Muslim, Wicca, Hindu, etc, have any evidence, and thus all of your claims are equal, simply myths and superstition.

I disagree with your claim that you aren’t asking anyone to believe or not believe.  You keep making claims and that seems to indicate that you think we should believe your nonsense.  You only get befuddled when we don’t automatically and ask for evidence. 

As for how you think it’s easy to tell when someone has or hasn’t studied the source, and I assume you mean the bible here, you are wrong.  All you are doing is making the good ol’ “true Scotsman” fallacy.   You are trying to claim that the only “right” way to understand your bible is *your* way.  And that is unsupportable by you.  All theists, and especially Christians, all think that their interpretation is what God “really” meant.  I was a Christian, and I thought that too, until I realized that there was no more evidence for the Presbyterian way than there was for the Jehovah Witnesses or the Mormons, or the Catholics or whatever variant of “evangelical Christian” you could care to mention.  Again, none of you have any more evidence that your particular religion is right than the next.  I’ve asked various theists to do the Elijah test, to show whose god is “real” and not surprisingly, they all find excuses not to. 

Christians all claim different things about their god.  Why the problem with getting a message through for this supposedly omnipotent/omniscient/omnibenevolent being?  Why do some Chrsitians claim that all non-beleivers are going straight to a literal fire and brimstone hell and some claim that hell is only being “apart” from God?  Why do we have some Christians sure that original sin is in play but others not?  It seems that Christians, and other theists, simply create their own god dependent on their personal hates and desires.  A good person will have a decent god, a bigot will have a god that supports just what he thinks.  And all are just as ludicrous as the next.   
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: songpak3000 on December 07, 2011, 11:53:46 PM
Not only is God loving but he is Holy and Just.  Think about that for a second.  Love and Justice go hand in hand.  Because of the sins of their forefathers, God will punish them for a thousand generations.  And ultimately, this loving God has also created an everlasting hell for those that choose not to put their faith in him and go on living sinful lives.  God is so holy and perfect that we as humans fall completely short of His standard of holiness.  In the Old Testamnet Law (10 Commandments) God wrote the first law which was to have no other gods and idols before Him.  Imagine if you as a "Loving Parent" allow your own child to do whatever they wanted to do because... you loved them.  So if your child wanted to eat all the candy in the world and eat junk food and stay up late at night and miss school, you would let him because you supposedly 'loved him.'  God on the other hand is so perfect and holy, that it says in the Book of Revelations that thousands and thousands of angels are worshipping God and bowing before Him on His throne.  Since God is also just as we noted, He cannot leave sin unpunished.  We may think Sin is nothing, when you can live however you'd like.  God is going to judge everyone here on earth to account for the things they did with their lives, their bodies, idle words, actions, motives and deeds.  However, the Good News is that since we have Jesus, the ultimate sacrifice, we can all repent of our sinful deeds and put our trust in Him.  And those punishments that should have come upon you because of your sinful forefathers will be wiped clean from you.  We are living in a period of Grace and should be thankful for the opportunity to repent and live a righteous life before God.  In fact, all of us deserve hell, because to God, sin is that serious.  But His Love calls all to repent and put their faith in Him.  Blessings.
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: albeto on December 08, 2011, 12:29:44 AM
Not only is God loving but he is Holy and Just.

Says who?  God? 

Think about that for a second.  Love and Justice go hand in hand.  Because of the sins of their forefathers, God will punish them for a thousand generations.  And ultimately, this loving God has also created an everlasting hell for those that choose not to put their faith in him and go on living sinful lives.  God is so holy and perfect that we as humans fall completely short of His standard of holiness.  In the Old Testamnet Law (10 Commandments) God wrote the first law which was to have no other gods and idols before Him.  Imagine if you as a "Loving Parent" allow your own child to do whatever they wanted to do because... you loved them.  So if your child wanted to eat all the candy in the world and eat junk food and stay up late at night and miss school, you would let him because you supposedly 'loved him.'  God on the other hand is so perfect and holy, that it says in the Book of Revelations that thousands and thousands of angels are worshipping God and bowing before Him on His throne.  Since God is also just as we noted, He cannot leave sin unpunished.  We may think Sin is nothing, when you can live however you'd like.  God is going to judge everyone here on earth to account for the things they did with their lives, their bodies, idle words, actions, motives and deeds.  However, the Good News is that since we have Jesus, the ultimate sacrifice, we can all repent of our sinful deeds and put our trust in Him.  And those punishments that should have come upon you because of your sinful forefathers will be wiped clean from you.  We are living in a period of Grace and should be thankful for the opportunity to repent and live a righteous life before God.  In fact, all of us deserve hell, because to God, sin is that serious.  But His Love calls all to repent and put their faith in Him.  Blessings.

Oh brother.   &)

Is it inconceivable to you that people could have spent oodles of time pondering just this thing, spending hours and hours and days and weeks and years in prayer and coming to another conclusion?  Like, oh, the character of your god in your bible isn't loving but manipulative, egoistic, maniacal, evil and that the Jesus character was conceived only after Paul stormed through the area trying to convert people? 
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: Astreja on December 08, 2011, 01:12:32 AM
Not only is God loving but he is Holy and Just.
So your god *doesn't* torture anyone in Hell for eternity, then?  Because if he does, he's not loving, not holy and not just.

Quote
Love and Justice go hand in hand.  Because of the sins of their forefathers, God will punish them for a thousand generations.
I thought you claimed that your god was "just."  Punishing children for the crimes of their parents is injustice.

Quote
And ultimately, this loving God has also created an everlasting hell for those that choose not to put their faith in him and go on living sinful lives.
And you worship this... this barbarian?  Thanks for telling me that.  The fact that you would willingly revere such a right bastard as Biblegod tells Me that you are immoral and that I should never, ever trust you with a task of any importance.

Quote
God is so holy and perfect that we as humans fall completely short of His standard of holiness.
That reflects more on your god than on humans, you know.  A god that is upset to be in the presence of imperfection is a total weakling.

Quote
God is going to judge everyone here on earth to account for the things they did with their lives, their bodies, idle words, actions, motives and deeds.
I doubt that very, very much.  Since life after death is mythical until proven otherwise, I say that no, there will not be any such judgment.

Quote
However, the Good News is that since we have Jesus, the ultimate sacrifice, we can all repent of our sinful deeds and put our trust in Him.
And you're okay with accepting a human sacrifice and letting someone else die in your place?  Sucks to be you.

Quote
In fact, all of us deserve hell, because to God, sin is that serious.
No one "deserves" hell.  Get real.
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: Aaron123 on December 08, 2011, 01:22:54 AM
Not only is God loving but he is Holy and Just.  Think about that for a second.  Love and Justice go hand in hand.  Because of the sins of their forefathers, God will punish them for a thousand generations.  And ultimately, this loving God has also created an everlasting hell for those that choose not to put their faith in him and go on living sinful lives.  God is so holy and perfect that we as humans fall completely short of His standard of holiness.  In the Old Testamnet Law (10 Commandments) God wrote the first law which was to have no other gods and idols before Him.  Imagine if you as a "Loving Parent" allow your own child to do whatever they wanted to do because... you loved them.  So if your child wanted to eat all the candy in the world and eat junk food and stay up late at night and miss school, you would let him because you supposedly 'loved him.'  God on the other hand is so perfect and holy, that it says in the Book of Revelations that thousands and thousands of angels are worshipping God and bowing before Him on His throne.  Since God is also just as we noted, He cannot leave sin unpunished.  We may think Sin is nothing, when you can live however you'd like.  God is going to judge everyone here on earth to account for the things they did with their lives, their bodies, idle words, actions, motives and deeds.  However, the Good News is that since we have Jesus, the ultimate sacrifice, we can all repent of our sinful deeds and put our trust in Him.  And those punishments that should have come upon you because of your sinful forefathers will be wiped clean from you.  We are living in a period of Grace and should be thankful for the opportunity to repent and live a righteous life before God.  In fact, all of us deserve hell, because to God, sin is that serious.  But His Love calls all to repent and put their faith in Him.  Blessings.

Right now, I'm incapable of reading through that stuff, as my eyes just glazes once I get past the first couple sentences.  So instead of going through each things, I'll just cut to the chase:

What proof do you have that any of that stuff is real, as opposed to a bunch of babble made up thousands of years ago?
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: jetson on December 08, 2011, 06:04:29 AM
Not only is God loving but he is Holy and Just.  Think about that for a second.  Love and Justice go hand in hand.  Because of the sins of their forefathers, God will punish them for a thousand generations.  And ultimately, this loving God has also created an everlasting hell for those that choose not to put their faith in him and go on living sinful lives.  God is so holy and perfect that we as humans fall completely short of His standard of holiness.  In the Old Testamnet Law (10 Commandments) God wrote the first law which was to have no other gods and idols before Him.  Imagine if you as a "Loving Parent" allow your own child to do whatever they wanted to do because... you loved them.  So if your child wanted to eat all the candy in the world and eat junk food and stay up late at night and miss school, you would let him because you supposedly 'loved him.'  God on the other hand is so perfect and holy, that it says in the Book of Revelations that thousands and thousands of angels are worshipping God and bowing before Him on His throne.  Since God is also just as we noted, He cannot leave sin unpunished.  We may think Sin is nothing, when you can live however you'd like.  God is going to judge everyone here on earth to account for the things they did with their lives, their bodies, idle words, actions, motives and deeds.  However, the Good News is that since we have Jesus, the ultimate sacrifice, we can all repent of our sinful deeds and put our trust in Him.  And those punishments that should have come upon you because of your sinful forefathers will be wiped clean from you.  We are living in a period of Grace and should be thankful for the opportunity to repent and live a righteous life before God.  In fact, all of us deserve hell, because to God, sin is that serious.  But His Love calls all to repent and put their faith in Him.  Blessings.

songpak3000,

Welcome to the forum.  Please take some time to read through our forum rules that you agreed to abide by when you registered.  This is a forum for discussion, not a place where people "preach" their personal beliefs without citing facts and evidence to support them.  Your post above is considered preaching.  As you can see, members are asking you to show where your assertions above are supported by demonstrable facts and/or evidence.  If you have any questions, you may send a private message to any moderator.

Jetson
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: riley2112 on December 08, 2011, 12:49:29 PM
How would you define Holy and just, songpak3000?
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: One Above All on December 08, 2011, 12:50:49 PM
God is just... Well, let's start punishing kids for their parents' "sins". Per the Bible, everyone is a sinner and the punishment for sin is removing a body part that caused you to sin and/or death.

God's gonna have a lot more amputees to not heal when we're done...
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: dloubet on December 08, 2011, 06:08:55 PM
Quote
So if your child wanted to eat all the candy in the world and eat junk food and stay up late at night and miss school, you would let him because you supposedly 'loved him.

No, but I would also not burn them forever in a lake of fire, as you apparently approve of.
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: velkyn on December 09, 2011, 09:07:41 AM
  In the Old Testamnet Law (10 Commandments) God wrote the first law which was to have no other gods and idols before Him. 

another Christian who is again too ignorant of their own bible to realize that the commandments are many many more than just the first 10. 
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: Ivellios on January 03, 2012, 10:36:41 AM
Not only is God loving but he is Holy and Just.  Think about that for a second.  Love and Justice go hand in hand.  Because of the sins of their forefathers, God will punish them for a thousand generations.

Did your Grand-parents punish you for everything you parents did wrong?

I'd rather have Grand-parent love over God's "love" any day!

To think someone deserves to be punished for something done by thier ancestors 40,000 years ago[1]... WOW.

To call that "Love" and "Justice" ...

someone's a sick puppy.
 1. 40 years per generation, 1,000 generations...
Title: Re: God's "all-loving" nature
Post by: composer on January 13, 2012, 08:38:36 PM
Not only is God loving but he is Holy and Just. 
And a figment of imaginations like yours now!

Think about that for a second.  Love and Justice go hand in hand.  Because of the sins of their forefathers, God will punish them for a thousand generations.
For starters Deut. 24:16 & Ezek. 18:20 refute that claim!

The Christian understanding is that the messiah, Jesus, died for the sins of the people. The messiah is supposed to be a human sacrifice that is the blood sacrifice necessary for the forgiveness of sin.

But we are taught in this proven self contradicting bible that no one can die for the sins of another. -

In Deuteronomy 24:16 (KJV) it specifically says this:

The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the father. Every man shall be put to death for his own sin. (Online Source: http://whatjewsbelieve.org/) - What Jews believe Point 1.)
 
cf. 
 
Fathers must not be put to death for what their children24 do, nor children for what their fathers do; each must be put to death for his own sin. (Deut. 24:16) NET (See also: post2966264 (Post#1586, story book contradictions Deut. 24:16 Oops! Ex. 20: 5. LOL!))
 
This was later confirmed by -
 
Ezekiel 18:20 RSV

"THE SON SHALL NOT SUFFER FOR THE INIQUITY OF THE FATHER. NOR THE FATHER SUFFER FOR THE INIQUITY OF THE SON; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself."

Ezekiel 18:20 also "pulls the rug out from under" Christianity's main premise, that all generations of mankind are burdened with sin and death stemming from Adam's act of disobedience. Only Christ's redeeming shed blood can end this never-ending cycle of sin and death. Quite clearly Ezekiel refutes this notion. "The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father." (Online Source: http://www.bibleorigins.net/MoabiteBloodMessiah.html)   

Much better luck next times!

(http://s6.postimage.org/ibkekcjm5/velvet10.gif)