-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Atheism
- Thread starter Disco08
- Start date
Djevv said:
It hasn't directly though. I hear again and again that times have changed, and Jesus is a kind and loving Jesus. But we will have a Jesus who will go all old testiment on us at Judgement Day. What I am trying to understand is why you get to pick and choose when Jesus is love and God is the consumate hard-ass?
It seems to me its a pick the voice that best suits the argument situation. Want people to fear god, throw judgement day retribution at them. Want people to know god is love, throw a few Jesus loves you stories there way. No consistency, just the right voice to generate the right response.
Its the same as the literal/context argument. If the bible literally supports what you want, it is a literal meaning. If however it is against the belief, then its not supposed to be read literally, its supposed to be read in context, and only those who go to bible school can truly understand this.
Djevv said:
And Christianity is the only religion (gee I hate that word), that admits that there is nothing that we can do to 'deserve' to go to Heaven. We rely completely on God's grace. And only an immeasurably loving God would offer that kind of grace to people who so clearly don't deserve it, like me. Every other religion relies on what you can do to 'earn' or 'warrant' salvation. But we are imperfect and so no-one qualifies of their own accord.
evo said:
Hah, Hah, Hah. Sorry Evo, did you take that personally? I thought it was quite funny actually. Princess Evo. That's got a ring to it. But that comeback was lame. You can do much better than that and if you can't go and ask Inbredford for some material.
Djevv said:
I already responded to this with no reply.
The advice was the genocide was not race related, but due to their sin.
As I mentioned already, I agree it was not about race, but I disagree it was about sin. All it was about was a whole race of people were living on the turf God wanted to give his chosen people, so they got given the green light to wipe out every man, woman, and child.
It may not be genocide motivated by race, but the outcome was genocide nonetheless.
Also it does not address my query on China. They reject everything about Jesus, and the oppress those that do. Given all these sins does this mean Christians are cool to wipe out China to build a Christian state?
Obviously every man, woman and child in that tribe or race was sinful so it was a completely legitimate "premptive strike" on the part of God.
Good work God!!!
:clap
Of course, it was completely coincidental that God wanted the Chosen People to live in that precise area.
Good work God!!!
:clap
Of course, it was completely coincidental that God wanted the Chosen People to live in that precise area.
antman said:
When you look at the scriptures cynically, with a pre-conceived opinion that God doesn't exist and a lack of study of God Himself, then you come up with cynical misinterpretations. Christians get bagged for it when discussing evolution but it is fine for the atheists to do it when discussing Christianity?
jayfox said:
When I read this for the first time, I actually went in cold (I was unaware of the background of the "homecoming"). Read the walk in the desert bit, thought it was harsh, but I could see where He was coming from.
For the retaking of Israel/Judia however, I was genuinely surprised that it was a brutal and bloodthursty conquest, where basically everyone was eliminated. As mentioned previously, war was not fun back then. This however was brutal in that it was absolute, and shocking for me in that it was God sanctioned.
I still remember reading it and wondering, who are these people? We know very little about them, other than they were eliminated to make way for God's children. I can read a lot on Sumeria, Assyria, and even the African nations who were effectively enslaved by the Egyptians, but nothing on these people.
They have no voice, and have no story, only because they were living in the wrong spot as far as I could see.
I assume this did happen, as I believe the Exodus did historically happen. As such, I take these events as historic and therefore literal. This is why it does disturbs me, just like any other forced relocation or eradication (i.e. Rwanda, Balkans, Armenia).
Tiger74 said:
OK, but God hates sin. Abhors it. This isn't the first time he wiped out a lot people for their love of it. Fortunately for us these days he deals with it through the sacrifice of Christ.
jayfox said:
I haven't seen anyone accuse Christians of cynical interpretations of evolution, only bone-headed ones. :cutelaugh
I have yet to see the Christians on this thread mount a serious attack on the theory of evolution and would welcome meaningful attacks, cynical or otherwise. Apologies to Djevv who tries hard but is limited by his poor resource material.
That's the difference - we judge challenges to our ideas on their merits - whether they are cynical or not doesn't matter.
Djevv said:Hmmm
Just to clarify for you.
TT2 posted the item you are referring to here. It failed to properly respond to my original post (side stepped it in fact), so I replied to his post pointing this out and reasking my question.
TT2 is yet to comment on this.
You say God hates sin, but he is prepared to forgive all if you worship him? If he hates sin so much, surely the weight of sin is more relevant than the level of devotion. This is the key thing I cannot get my head around for Islam and Christianity.
Tiger74 said:
I think you are getting the point here
. With my reply I wasn't sure if you were being serious or not, but it sounded pretty funny the way it was said :hihi. Anyway.......Actually the book of Romans and Hebrews deals with this issue in detail, how can a righteous judge actually forgive sin? When Jesus came to earth he dealt with the real problem not just the symptoms - Satan. Basically sin is a spiritual problem and needed to be dealt with spiritually. In the OT Israel had dealt with it by killing the committer of certain sins - this worked in that it certainly got rid of the sin, but it had never been Gods ultimate plan to deal with sin in such a cruel way.
Jesus' death on the cross, where the enemy took His life by force, was Satan's ultimate undoing, because he had no 'right' to take Jesus life, as He was sinless. In technical language it is called propitiation - Jesus paid the price we should have paid for our sin - and thus legally, opened the way for us to become CHILDREN (note: not slaves) of God and spend eternity with Him.
That makes no sense whatsoever. God is and always was and always will be. He makes the laws. Saying He needed to sacrifice His Son (big deal TBH, He can make as many sons as He likes) to legally get his children past Satan is blatantly ridiculous. If God is God, just kill Satan who is after all just another one of His creations.
It's also logically ridiculous to speculate that God has any other plan in action than His ultimate one. He transcends time so He knews the exact outcome of everything He planned to implement before He even set about creating it. So basically we're supposed to believe that God went ahead and created the heavens and Earth with the plan that Satan would stuff things up and He'd have to change his mind halfway through. Utter nonsense IMO.
It's also logically ridiculous to speculate that God has any other plan in action than His ultimate one. He transcends time so He knews the exact outcome of everything He planned to implement before He even set about creating it. So basically we're supposed to believe that God went ahead and created the heavens and Earth with the plan that Satan would stuff things up and He'd have to change his mind halfway through. Utter nonsense IMO.
