I'm glad I'm not a magic sky-daddy's livestock ... Man, Christianity is inherently aborent & twisted ... It takes a truly warped mind to dream it up & an extremely simple sheep mind to buy into it ...
@2012DI - So, this omnipotent being is just indifferent to the suffering Satan causes & does nothing about it ... He can, but won't ... Is that what you're saying ? Your god commanded genocide in the Bible along with all the virgins taken captive (for what reason I wonder ?) ... You have a god that endorses genocide, misogyny, slavery, murder, & rape ... Xtians are truly twisted freaks ...
The definition of the energy you refer to in the law of Conservation of Energy is as follows: "In physics, energy is a quantity that is often understood as the ability a physical system has to produce changes on another physical system."
Furthermore, you say that it would be OK for Gawd smite people, because they are his creations. You liken this to a farmer killing his livestock. Ponder this. A farmer did not CREATE his livestock. So technically he's not killing his creations, but an outside entity.
By your definition, a parent could kill their child because it is their creation.
It's not a matter of thinking outside of the box. Conservation of Energy is a LAW of PHYSICS. You're using "energy" in a way synonymous with human life. It's not.
so, god creates beings that can vividly experience suffering, and then floods em all out like a fucking ant hill with a hose?..imagine all of the infants, and toddlers, and old women, and animals that drowned in terror during the flood..he may not be genocidal by your distorted definition, but he's sure a dickhead. a dickhead i wouldn't worship.
@BuckChoklitt yeah - ok - think outside the box... if matter can't be destroyed... only changed... does that rule hold up regardless of whether or not we are talking about stones - or humans?
The perversion and pollution of man's gene resulting in some of the nephilim and the rest had tainted genes of over 400 years of cross breeding with demons. Many of their offspring King David and his army were set out to kill. Many miss this small information. David didn't just kill anyone, he was killing the seed of the fallen angels. Goliath himself was ten feet tall. The 2nd fall of angels has real possiblities of the myths of minotaur, mermaids, centaurs, ect as well.
Now, the unknown history concerning man and beast, you have to go back to the second fall of angels. In this fall, the angels corrupted man and beasts. A whole lot of genetic tampering and manipulation was done. The very story of the angel baring offsprings with the daughters of man resulting in the nephilim is sign of major crossing between species. The nephilims were giants and men of renown. They were great and mighty. One of the most famous nephilim is Gilgamesh.
There would be no flood this time, but rather the children of Israel, would wipe the offspring of evil from the face of the land. Yah rightly said let none live of the men, of the women, of the children, and in some areas, even of the livestock. For such was the evil in these people that even the animal had been sexualy abused by demons and the sons of demons.
After the flood, the fallen angels once again came to earth and took the daughters of men to be their wives, a whole lot of genetic tampering and manipulation was done and so it was these that Joshua/Moses and the other spies saw in the land that Yah had promised to the Israelites.
People miss that wicked and evil angels came down from heaven and took for themselves wives from the daughters of men. And through this unholy and unnatural union were the bloodlines of all humanity once tainted to halt Yahushua from being born or to shed his perfect blood in exchange for ours. And so Yahuwah comanded his servant Noah to build an ark, that the remaining undefiled 8 people on planet earth who were left, might be saved from the destruction Yah would bring upon them by flood.
You went to Jesus Camp when you were little, didn't you Christ?
I just looove how any time a Christian is confronted with the cold truth of God's cruelty, their response is ALWAYS, 'We cannot always understand God's ways,' or 'God has a greater plan that we can't understand.' Meaning they've lost. Allowing a tiny baby to suffer is always wrong, even if he visits heaven afterwords.
An equivalent would be a mother beating her child till his bones are broken, but then buy him toys. That still OK?
the godz of the bible are the must genocidal motherfuckerz known to man at the first god of the bible the lord god killed everyone that didn't listen to norh than mose had I am he killed everyone that would not obey mose than you have the god that gave isreal land that someone else had already the bible is the work of wicked men and you most look the other way when it comes to facts about how things work put your life on the line for your truth than come and talk about what god has done for you
so our kind and loving God , thinks of his creation as farm animals to be slaightered at whim for his enjoyment ? Cool , nice God .
God violated the laws of thermodynamics etc when he created the universe, world and all else. Why would it apply to him now ?
Satan only killed Jobs family with Gods permission, no one else. God on the other hand seems to love slaughtering people, the flood, egypt firstborns, egypt plagues, lots of people that were inconveniant to his plans, Sodom and Gamorrah
You said humans think they cant square off against God. I see what youy mean. I find it facinating that God lets us do it--and there are many examples in the Bible.Examples--Cain,JACOB (who wrestled with God)David,Abraham,Johna,Job,Peter,Thomas. God invites us to wrestle with Him--not to dismiss Him!
"You do not NEED to eliminate your competition to gain advantage. And doing so is not necesarily advantageous."
But doing so CANNOT be condemned from your worldview. You have to borrow my God, and my source of value of human life in order to make that criticism.
"According to evolution, natural selection happens. It doesn't say that it's 'beneficial', it just say that it happens"
I guess that is true. I would have been more accurate in saying "according to evolution it's the way the universe functions". Hence, who are you to criticize the normal functioning of the universe, which includes strong genetic material overpowering weaker genetic material.
Again, you have no basis in criticizing one tribe from killing another, based on your beliefs.
"Any criticisms wouldn't be based on evolutionary theory, but that doesn't mean that someone who accepts evolution cannot have a moral reasoning behind why genocide is bad."
"Evolution doesn't claim to be a moral code"
That's really been my point all along. You have to borrow from my world-view the portions of it that you like, in order to criticize what you find objectionable. It's certainly not within your atheistic-evolutionist worldview that this foundation of criticism comes about.
"And I don't think that 'stronger genetic material killing weaker' is necesarily a good thing."
I'm sure you don't. But according to evolution and natural selection it IS beneficial. You are assigning value to the individuals irrespective of genetic mandate.
The only reason you have a problem with this fact, when applied to humans, is because deep down inside you know we are not just animals. You can't suppress ALL of your Creator's imprint upon you ALL of the time.
b. Those procreating are better adapted to the environment than those that don't get to live that long."
Yes. And by eliminating your competition, you gain a genetic advantage. Also, limited resources. If I acquire more land, food, water, etc I can have more offspring, and pass my favorable traits along. This does not exclude killing a whole tribe. This is just basic survival of the fittest.
"It doesn't mention genocide, or in fact how these creatures die."
Exactly. Evolution and survival of the fittest does not concern itself with HOW something dies. Therefore, if I kill my genetic competition, it's no different than if I out reproduce them and my offspring monopolize the resources.
There is no moral foundation for atheistic-evolutionist to criticize one tribe from killing another tribe if it provides a competitive advantage in the gene pool.
"My point is it's not necesarilly the strongest that have to dominate. It's simply that the weakest are unable to reproduce, generally because they don't life long enough "
You are missing the point. You become a walking contradiction when you criticize a being you don't believe in, from a book you think is a fairy tale, for directing the taking of life that according to you is a random accident, when all that happened was stronger genetic material triumphed to be passed on.
"1. As an intelligent being, I'm able to understand that if it can happen to others, it can happen to me."
The drive for self-preservation doesn't rule out the consistency of evolution supporting genocide vis-a-vis survival of the fittest.
"2. As a human (with morals, however I got them) I see the slaughter of humans as an immoral act"
Yes but the question is why? A world view based on a random accident creating a bunch of atoms that arranged into people has no basis for your conclusion
"we tend to dislike things like genocide... and leave that sort of nasty stuff up to Nazis (and god) to do."
Yeah. That's my whole point. You have no basis within your world-view to criticize the Nazis, or God. According to natural selection, eliminating those in your species with weaker traits is justified, and even desirable. That's the whole basis of "survival of the fittest".
....just look at the word genocide >(gene-ocide). That is what survival of the fittest is. Eliminating the genes in the gene pool that are not your own.
Evolution supports genocide, and by nature deems it as benificial.
"In a cage, the physically stronger will probably win. In a complex environment, the more intelligent will."
Yes, and humans use intelligent advantage to make better weapons, and have better battle strategies. Intelligence is part of the fitness mix I'm refering to.
"Evolution doesn't say that one species should kill another."
No. It says the strongest WITHIN a species dominate the gene pool and outcompete, while the other are killed or die. Evolution is a genocide of DNA traits.
"My 'world-view' isn't borrowed from yours. That we see some things similarly doesn't mean that anyone has borrowed from anyone else."
No. It because we have the same Creator. This is why when presented with the innevitible and logical conclusion that natural selection when applied to humans condones genocide as a process of genetic trait ascension, you rightly reject that horrid notion.
"but in the most general sense... it's the ability one organism has to surivive in it's environment."
Yes. And if my tribe kills your tribe, I have increased my ability to survive, and have reduced your ability to survive to zero.
You can only determine we shouldn't let "law of the jungle" or "survival of the fittest" run it's animalistic course, by assuming value to humans. The source of that value comes from my Biblical world view.
One individual or group possessing any traits that give it a competitive advantage. The strong dominate and pass on their genetic material, thereby increasing the vitality of the species.
Evolution is built on the "genocide" of weak traits, and those that carry them.
I'm sure you are decent enough person to know we are better than broccoli. My point is, you have to borrow from my world-view to arrive at this notion.
Stronger humans killing weaker humans is absolutely the definition of natural selection. Evolution teaches we are just big smart animals. One strong tribe killing another weaker tribe is a natural and beneficial process according to your evolutionary world-view.
"You can't say they weren't the same race, then say... 'so that makes it not genocide therefore god isn't evil' "
You are violating your own world-view to make this critique. According to your naturalist-evolutionary world view, humans are just accidentally conglomerations of atoms. We are no better than broccoli by that standard.
Secondly, the stronger killing the weaker is the very DEFINITION natural selection. Ergo, your world-view applauds the natural selection that took place.
If you can show me why the stronger, more fit, shouldn't dominate, impose there will upon, and "thin out" the weaker of the species....and do it without borrowing from my Biblical world then you have a valid argument.
As it stands, you have to borrow the morals given by my God to criticize my God, whom you claim doesn't exist.
Firstly, I would like to see you prove it is impossible. Secondly, please explain to me where I ever made the claim that the world was literally repopulated by ONLY 2 people?
I simply stated, it's inconsistent to object to this idea on moral grounds based on the circumstances presented.
Well, if it is the only means of repopulating, it is by no means condemnable. It is the only option. Unfortunately you completely failed to address my point.
Also, there is incest in your geneology. There is incest in everyones geneology. That is just the reality of human history, even recent history (times of famine, isolation, etc). I'm assuming you are doing reasonably well inspite of it.
Understand that cows are grown for use in food and drink. They are not intelligent beings. Humans were made to live their own lives. They have the ability to create, destroy, and deduce.
God, in the bible, helps the Jews slaughter millions of people so they could take "the land that was rightfully theirs." He also tells the Levite priests through Moses to kill all the 3,000 other Israelites, and would have killed everyone but Moses JUST BECAUSE THEY WORSHIPPED AN IDOL.
By the way, biblical claims are STILL being used to justify wars today. Don't you think God would zap some sense into these people instead of watching them kill each other over nothing?
"God condone's incest numerous times in the bible."
God doesn't "condone incest". What you, like about 99% of atheists, can't seem to grasp is that there is a difference between DESCRIPTIVE and presciptive. Simply telling what happened is descriptive. Please show me where the Bible says we are to follow the example of Lot in the matter of incest, or where the act of incest is praised as a good thing?
"God condone's incest numerous times in the bible. Adam and Eve, Noah and family..."
If you assume it is accurate that there is only one family line on earth, how exactly do you suggest human life be repopulated?
This is nothing more than a red herring you have provided. If you are going to argue that the nature of the story is wrong, you have to be willing to grant the presuppositions the story is based on in order to interact with it.
Read the whole story. God did not condone incest. Read what happened to Lot's descendents througout the Bible, as most of them tend to rebel against God.
Also, don't quote mine, see, that's your problem. You quote mine and say, "Aha, God did Genocide..."
No, read the whole post, and read the whole passage in the Bible.
There was no "genocide". They were several races in each city, and they were killed because of HOMOSEXUALITY AND PRIDE against God; not race.
Gen. 19:5 bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
==
Here "know" is speaking of Carnal knowledge, i.e. "sex/rape". This is verified by the fact Lot was literally willing to give them his daughters to prevent them from attempting a homosexual rape of the "men".
Ezekiel 16: 49 lists pride firstly among other sins, though that isn't an exhaustive list.
First of all no where in the bible does it state Sodom was punished for homosexuality but for sexual immorality. It's only bigots like you who interprets that from that one quote
Read the whole Bible, and quit quote mining. Homosexuality has always been condemned, and by the way, what do you suppose "sexual immorality" is refering to anyway?
See, here you have a problem, because EITHER WAY God is condemning adultery and fornication, of whatever form, to death penalty, and rightly so.
Also "Sodomite," as it appears later in the bible, always meant "homosexual".
Do you even know the definition of the word "Genocide"? Sodom and Gomorah were melting pots, they had people of all races in them, so "Genocide" is 100% a false accusation to begin with.
Lots wife looking back is because she longed for the things and the lifestyle of sodom. She is destroyed becuase of her heart condition. the physical act of "looking back" was merely the surface problem, the last straw, if you will.
1) God is no respector of persons. God does not pervert judgment.
2) God destroyed an entire city, citing their sins and unrepentance.
therefore:
3) We can safely know that everyone in the city was guilty of a sin worthy of death.
Abraham prays on behalf of Sodom, and God says if there are 10 good people in the city, he would spare them all. This is God's mercy literally looking for an excuse to spare people.
"This is God's mercy literally looking for an excuse to spare people. "
Or a God who;s not as omnipresent and all knowing as you liek to claim he is. Once again, your claims of all knowing, and perfect judgment once again come into question
It is obvious you do not know the word Genocide, because by implication "Genocide" requires the mass killing of a specific RACE of people for no reason other than their race itself.
The destruction of Sodom and Gomorah was because of God's judgement against SIN and had nothing whatsoever to do with race or nationality. The fact is, Lot's wife and sons (mentioned in Gen. 19:12) died also, proving this was NOT a racially motivated act.
They are my brothers, just as all of humanity is and I love them like brothers.
I merely see them as living unhealthy and sinful lives, held down by their pride that stops them from questioning their sin. I have compassion for their suffering and I want them to break free from the bonds of their sin for their own good.
I said "I would do whatever he commanded me to do"
Find me 1 religion in the world where a follower would not do what their GOD asked.
Disobedient children only affect their families these days, yet todays homosexuals have a tendancy to try to make a spectacle of themselves and affect entire communities. If they kept their lustful practises modest, and to themselves, there would be little need to protest I think.
If it was proved to me 100% that GOD willed me to do something, then of course I would do whatever he commanded me to do. If I was not 100% sure then no I would not, it could just be Satan trying to deceive me.
To understand the concept you have to read the conclusions in each chapter of Leviticus to understand the relevence of the chapters rules.
The end of chapter 11(which contains the shellfish rule) is "'These are the regulations concerning animals, birds, every living thing that moves in the water and every creature that moves about on the ground. You must distinguish between the unclean and the clean, between living creatures that may be eaten and those that may not be eaten."
"But god's rules about eating shellfish, wearing clothes of mixed threads or how to sow crops don't apply any more?"
Those rules were to do with Hygiene and other concerns for an ancient people who knew little of such things. They are insightful and useful, yet they are not moral laws, but health based laws.
The shellfish one for instance is because the shellfish are bottom feeders, muck filterers etc. and therefore full of disease that could not be cleansed or prepared by ancient man.
"If one of them(animal carcass) falls into a clay pot, everything in it will be unclean, and you must break the pot. Any food that could be eaten but has water on it from such a pot is unclean, and any liquid that could be drunk from it is unclean. Anything that one of their carcasses falls on becomes unclean; an oven or cooking pot must be broken up. They are unclean, and you are to regard them as unclean."Lev11:33-35
Again you misuse the translation as you often do with the translation of Virgin. You know damn well what unclean meant, and if you were half the scholar you claimed to be, you'd be more honest about it.
Also how many shell fish do you know you could find in the middle of the desert for forty when according to the bible all they had to eat was mana?
Ahem, "So god's rule for the Jews about homosexuality still applies" Huh??
I specifically said the rules do not apply to us gentiles, how can you turn around and say that they do?? you don't make sense.
I said that the fact the rule exists is proof GOD considers male homosexuality a sin. That means we need to teach men to overcome their lustful desires to defile their brothers, to never accept it as natural, but to oppose it like any sin.
We are not expected to stone them, or imprison them.
Ahem Sapper "Its use for us is to show us through real life example what GOD considers sin e.g. male homosexuality."
That is why we use it and pronounce it, it clearly shows what GOD considers sin and if you read it, there are many laws that no-one should ever disagree with(like the anti-bestiality law), yet when we point out the male homosexuality issue, that one is apparently 'off limits'.
GOD is the ultimate authority on what is good and what is evil.
Yes GOD did destroy many of his creations, starting with the great flood that wiped out ALL humanity except a single family. That would be Noah, his 3 sons and their wives.
GOD has a right to destroy any of us if he sees fit, he was the one who created us so he has the right to destroy us if we go bad.
Do people not throw out rotten fruit?, do we not burn diseased corpses? Is it so wrong to cut out an infection to stop it spreading to healthy parts of the body?
The chapter of Leviticus was the law given to the Israelites through Moses.
We are gentiles, therefore we are not expected to follow that law.
Its use for us is to show us through real life example what GOD considers sin e.g. male homosexuality.
Of course there are plenty of other rules concerning hygiene that are just good sense, yet were ignored by Christians for centuries, that could have saved many lives.
We follow everything Y'shua taught us, NO Christian should cherry-pick his words.
1) God is all knowing, therefore, when he passes judgment he does so with perfect knowledge of sinner's heart. His judgments are just and perfect.
2) After the fall in the Garden, God was perfectly within his rights to everyone to hell, and one might even say that, without the Cross of Christ, without a redemption plan, his righteousness would have even REQUIRED him to do so.
sapper - "Jesus explicitly said that the old covenant was still applicable, and that he wasn't here to change the old laws, only to bring some new ones." I would have to disagree with your interpretation of what Jesus said - the OT is quoted today because within it we can see that which God approves and disapproves. As for killing - that is not the purpose He has set for Christians.
Sapper - its not a contradiction - its a difference in purpose. Troy Brown - wide receiver of the NFL's Patriots also played cornerback in the last years of his career. As a wide receiver - his job was to do anything he could to advance the ball and score touchdowns for his team. As a cornerback - his job was to do anything he could do to prevent the advancing of the ball and prevent the scoring of touchdowns. Same guy - different purposes. I hope this helps.
Thats an interesting point of view - yeah - Jesus spoke of how He didn't come to abolish the law or the prophets - and then He gave the Law He spoke of - which differed from Mosiac Law - hmmmmm.... as I said - btw - same God different agenda
Paul never over ruled Jesus - he was a servant of Christ that which the Lord told him to do - its remarkable how bitter you truly are over all of this
"Different agenda, old covenant. Two excuse for 1: A God that has no idea 2: Not following the rules we don't like"
Really Ashe? When you are presented with a simple, obvious answer that is easily demonstrated through the scriptures its an excuse? And then - just in case some one challenges that you claim its an excuse to not follow rules? Really?
And you wonder why I do not respect your brand of 'logic'? Really?
The evidence is paramount, and only really overlooked by those who have similar issues to those who blindingly follow cult leaders and lemonade drinkers.
Your simple and obvious answers are not backed up by biblical text
"if we were actually livestock - you wouldn't be trying to judge Him"
are you saying a Cow is incapable f judging his master when eventually he decides to butcher him?
Maybe the cow cannot copmpriehend the full ramifications or logic, but "This man who fed me and cared for me is now about to kill me" is a very simple statement. How do you know what a cow thinks in his final hours. No animal I know calmly accepts it's demise
ashe - absolutely. I don't believe cows have the capacity to judge. The instinct to survive doesn't imply intelligence - even plats will grow towards the sun in order to survive... or would you argue they are judging objects that block them from the sun light?
emu - No - if we were actually livestock - you wouldn't be trying to judge Him... it was an imperfect analogy used to illustrate a point. This is a true statement however - if you don't accept Jesus Christ as your savior - you are not a child of God - but instead a child of Satan... so says the scriptures.
child of satan? if thats the case then anyone who doesnt worship him he doesnt own, so he doesnt have the right to kill them. why did he instruct people to kill unbelievers then (as in the scriptures)? they arent his belongings, theyre satans, he has no say in what happens to satans belongings.
if youre trying to justify him killing his creation then the only way it could be acceptable based on the way youve explained it would be if we were his livestock and not his children
a father doesnt love his livestock like he loves his kids, and im sure youre reasonable enough to realise how absurd it is for a farmer to take his kids lives like he would livestock. if god is a good father and is all about love and forgiveness it would be totally out of that character for him to kill his kids.
trying to justify him murdering his children by saying "hes god, hes above human morality and he's beyond your understanding" is nonsense. no matter how omnipotent they may be, power and status doesnt make their actions good, necessary or right. its a logical fallacy to suggest power/status/who or what they/she/he is makes their actions unquestionably right and if you dont agree it's cuz you arent intelligent enough -- simply cuz you arent a god -- to understand.
emu - I wouldn't expect you to agree with me - because you can't conceive that there is a higher power to begin with... we are talking about a being who was not born, will not die, and doesn't live in our concept of time.
"Who do you think Satan ultimately belongs to? In other words - Satan, being a fallen angel - was once a non-fallen angel... starting to get the picture?"
so now youre saying satan belongs to god, so anything that belongs to satan actually belongs to god. so why not just cut out the middle man and just say nonbelievers belong to god and anything bad that happens to them is gods will and not satans.
if you want to know whats imperfect, its your beliefs. they dont add up.
"emu - I wouldn't expect you to agree with me - because you can't conceive that there is a higher power to begin with... we are talking about a being who was not born, will not die, and doesn't live in our concept of time."
i can conceive it just fine, i just dont believe it. its faith, so why speak of your faith as though it is fact. that is crossing over into delusional territory.
you criticise others saying they shouldnt comment on what they dont understand, and you say we all dont understand the immortal being outside of time and space, yet you must think you understand him in order to jump to his defence and speak in quite some detail about where he is, why he does the things he does (you speak of agendas) and everything else, including why he takes lives. whats so special about you?
and if your answer to why you have to defend him is "hes god, he doesnt involve himself in our triviality", well if thats the case then why do you think he involves himself in your life, answers your prayers and gives a shit about you or anyone else on this tiny planet in this universe that is so large we truly are all so insignificant to it. whether god exists is one matter, but you think an intervening, supervising one exists which insists on a book being made. that is even harder to believe.
You are going to far with my imperfect analogy - but thats ok - because you don't believe in God anyways - so it wouldn't make sense not matter what analogy I presented.
Who do you think Satan ultimately belongs to? In other words - Satan, being a fallen angel - was once a non-fallen angel... starting to get the picture? Everything is God's to do with as He will - like it or not.
"Everything is God's to do with as He will - like it or not. "
Two problems there
1: That makes you a coward
2: And if you're wrong, you are gambling a lot of people on a simple "faith" Or "Beleief" that your right when constantly we see so many people with a personal realationship with Christ behaving so evily, and peope like you who just support them, back them up or make excuses for them
Jesus must have a hell of a split personality to have so many conflicting ideas with his "mates"
1: That makes you a coward - actually - I think that makes me obedient - hardly a coward. Its stupidity to run into a brick wall head first - not bravery.
2. If I am wrong? Whether I am right or wrong - it isn't like I could do anything either way... the Will of God is God's alone...
Also - not all who claim the HS have the HS - if they don't bare the fruits - they are pretenders...
1: Liek I said, people were obiedieant to other tyrants in the past, your answer only shows even more how cowardly that is? A brick wall? Chris, I'm not the one ignoring passages, you are.
3: "Gods will alone" no Chris, it's your choice, and one you are comfortable with, like those who sat at the picinic.
Also - I happen to agree - but your claims to "personal relationship with Christ" has no real power considering. especially given your answers do not help your case, save to the converted
I don't think you can apply a title like 'good' or 'evil' to God. Concepts of good and evil are very much human inventions, which would be difficult to apply to something very inhuman (not necessarily in a pejorative sense) like God.
One important thing to remember is many of the stories about friends and family of some serial killers. It is also common for pedophile cases and kidnappers.
The family is often 'Shocked' they talk about how he was such a kind person, seemed loving and no-one expected him to do such a thing, etc.
Humans can not see into the hearts of other humans, that is why a human judging like a GOD is a tyrant.
GOD sees ALL that people are and he knows the absolute truth of our guilt or innocence.
God is good all the time. One has to be good to understand Good and there is not of us that is Good. Think of what I'm saying here. Are we really Good?
Ahh good, then how is you have forgotten about the mass amounts of text that talk all about GOD telling his prophets all the horrible things that mankind does and how he wants us to be loving and yet he is compelled to punish us for our evil ways?
The flood was GOD showing he regretted that he had created humans because we were all so evil.
Perhaps you should study a bit of history, then you may see why GOD was so harsh at times, mankinds history is a rather bloody and horrific tale.
Tell me how you have forgottenabout the standards by which God mentions "Horrible things"
It's not by the standard you like tho think it was. I seem to remember kids being eaten by She Bears for example for simply being kids. I also seem to remember one of Gods greatest voices being hated by the bible forever because fo the jealousy of moses.
Okay, now you need to substantiate your claims, I am prepared to quote verses to show my assertation, so please show me passages about these 2 so that I may see and know.
GOD btw, expects us to be righteous people. He goes into great detail in nearly ever single book about the trangressions of the Israelites, who were actually emulating all the pagan nations around them. Things like oppressing the poor and widows, child sacrifice, mistreating foreigners, murder, perversion, adultery, etc.
No - or if I did I forgot - wow - I have to ask - was this a course taught from a Christian point of view or a secular point of view? Like - was it religion you studied that included the Bible - or was it a faith based Bible course?
I made it apoint to be taught from both persperctives. I was taught in a secular university with deliberate insight from the CLC then stuidied in isreal for 2 years. I mentioned my credntials in liguistics to you before. it's okay if you forgot though
Nope. you have already justified the killing of babies...of breaking their heads open like an egg on rocks by people who believed that god wanted them to do so. It is only a matter of time and circumstance when you start hearing "Voices"
"One said Schlosser told him she wanted to cut off her baby's arms and her own limbs and head and give them to God. Other medical testimony referenced erratic behavior and hallucinations, including apostles rising out of bloodfilled streets to announce the apocalypse"
no - it really isn't - you have to test the spirits against the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles - which are in the New Testament... they never taught we should dismember our children and give them to God - thus we know it wasn't God...
lol - Kaspar - you are seriously making me crack up... If anyone were to do what the Jews did today I would opposed to it (note: I am an anti-abortionist)... what I am saying is that was the Old Covenant - that was God's choice - and today - we are in the New Covenant which has none of that in it...
Ahh on that logic Chris, which is pathetic really I am sorry to be harsh,
I can kill my child because she is my creation. I can destroy my hospital because it was my creation, even though I know the suffering such an act would cause.
I judge your god by my standards because of his human nature and the fact he was created in mans image not the other way around
"Hey let my people go and the sufferign will stop, by the way I'll make sure your to stuuborn to listen to reason"
You don't create the life - you are merely a tool used in the creation of life. If you own the hospital - then I dare say you can destroy it. You are mistaken about God having a 'human nature' - we were created in His image - but of course - I am debating this with a man who doesn't know God - so your argument is sound in the sense that it is what you believe...
Chris, if God doesnt exist you have just made the argument for my right to desroy life
Is that right? no it's wrong
The problem is you don't understand the point I am making. Take God out of the equation does it it mean I still have that right or it makes it right?
Tell me anything in the bible that shows how God is not created in the ideal image of man's own aspirations. You'd be hard pressed to find it. The bible, once again is contradictory, full of holes and political intent
Take God out of the equation and the Jews had no right - and since God is no longer asking people to kill for Him (as far as I know) then there is no right for men to kill... You ask me to nything in the bible that shows how God is not created in the ideal image of man's own aspirations - but the Bible was written by men inspired by God - it is limited to the abilities of those inspired men - what your asking is like asking me what a certain flower smells like by looking at a photo.
Ashe - let me ask you - if trees could talk - and they could express themselves - how would they feel about people coming along - cutting them down - using them for homes, furniture, paper, toilet paper - etc? - yet we preserve the trees that we find pleasing - for our own pleasure. I am sure they would protest... just as people are doing - no?
There is a difference between Moral society where right and wrong has been wrought out of centuries of trial, error and stupidity and the natural way of things
My killing a child I created is wrong, because thats how our nature determines. My killing another animal for food or survival is not a moral issue, it's something else entirely.
Umm, you can't actually create a child. The best you can do is squirt some DNA in accordance with a natural process. ...and that is your own logical fallacy.
ashe - it works wonderfully for me - if you are happy with who and what you are - then so be it - but you shouldn't expect your ranting to change my mind or my heart in any way...
Is that persecution complex coming into play again Chris? Come on
Lets just put into perspective what you just said
"because he's god and he can"
If that sits well with you then to be honest Chris it only compounds my earlier arguments with you about the kind of society you deny you support. That you would allow the odd bruising your ego to overcome debate frankly only dissapoints me further.
no a persecution complex - just boredom... ""because he's god and he can" sits fine with me... I support God - His will - and His Way - which, as taught by Christ, means I share the Gospel and trust in the Lord (not taking what I think His will to be into my own hands). Frankly Ashe - you are like a broken record - and it just gets old - I suppose the same could be said about me - but you came HERE - lol - I didn't go THERE...
Frankly Chris you're like a true bigot who;'s ego got hurt and decided to end the friendship because of one comment of disagreement.
You insulted me and I took offense, you canceled the friendship becasue you didn't like my taking offense to it. If anyone shoudl have called it off it was me.
Broken record away Chris, the fact of the matter is this. make videos on the question peole have and if your answers are full of holes expect to be taken up on them. (cont)
Pretty straight forward. Read the Bible. You argument is flawed. Can we kill our kids? They are our creation.
seeker6789 1 year ago
I'm glad I'm not a magic sky-daddy's livestock ... Man, Christianity is inherently aborent & twisted ... It takes a truly warped mind to dream it up & an extremely simple sheep mind to buy into it ...
HallowsEveJack 1 year ago
I agree with you. I think satan is causing genocide. I know god would not ever do anything like that.
2012DI 1 year ago
@2012DI - So, this omnipotent being is just indifferent to the suffering Satan causes & does nothing about it ... He can, but won't ... Is that what you're saying ? Your god commanded genocide in the Bible along with all the virgins taken captive (for what reason I wonder ?) ... You have a god that endorses genocide, misogyny, slavery, murder, & rape ... Xtians are truly twisted freaks ...
HallowsEveJack 1 year ago
your right, god bless you
2012DI 1 year ago
The definition of the energy you refer to in the law of Conservation of Energy is as follows: "In physics, energy is a quantity that is often understood as the ability a physical system has to produce changes on another physical system."
Does that sound like human tissue?
BuckChoklitt 1 year ago
Furthermore, you say that it would be OK for Gawd smite people, because they are his creations. You liken this to a farmer killing his livestock. Ponder this. A farmer did not CREATE his livestock. So technically he's not killing his creations, but an outside entity.
By your definition, a parent could kill their child because it is their creation.
BuckChoklitt 1 year ago
@BuckChoklitt likening God to a farmer is my mistake - but comparing God to parents doesn't match up - least not how I see it.
christoferL 1 year ago
It's not a matter of thinking outside of the box. Conservation of Energy is a LAW of PHYSICS. You're using "energy" in a way synonymous with human life. It's not.
BuckChoklitt 1 year ago
@BuckChoklitt so the law of physics wouldn't apply to human tissue?
christoferL 1 year ago
@christoferL
so, god creates beings that can vividly experience suffering, and then floods em all out like a fucking ant hill with a hose?..imagine all of the infants, and toddlers, and old women, and animals that drowned in terror during the flood..he may not be genocidal by your distorted definition, but he's sure a dickhead. a dickhead i wouldn't worship.
itzahazylife 8 months ago
Conservation of energy has NOTHING to do with a human life. You're using the term "energy" wrong.
BuckChoklitt 1 year ago
@BuckChoklitt yeah - ok - think outside the box... if matter can't be destroyed... only changed... does that rule hold up regardless of whether or not we are talking about stones - or humans?
christoferL 1 year ago
WELL SAID
DameDeluxe 1 year ago
The perversion and pollution of man's gene resulting in some of the nephilim and the rest had tainted genes of over 400 years of cross breeding with demons. Many of their offspring King David and his army were set out to kill. Many miss this small information. David didn't just kill anyone, he was killing the seed of the fallen angels. Goliath himself was ten feet tall. The 2nd fall of angels has real possiblities of the myths of minotaur, mermaids, centaurs, ect as well.
Noah837 2 years ago
Now, the unknown history concerning man and beast, you have to go back to the second fall of angels. In this fall, the angels corrupted man and beasts. A whole lot of genetic tampering and manipulation was done. The very story of the angel baring offsprings with the daughters of man resulting in the nephilim is sign of major crossing between species. The nephilims were giants and men of renown. They were great and mighty. One of the most famous nephilim is Gilgamesh.
Noah837 2 years ago
There would be no flood this time, but rather the children of Israel, would wipe the offspring of evil from the face of the land. Yah rightly said let none live of the men, of the women, of the children, and in some areas, even of the livestock. For such was the evil in these people that even the animal had been sexualy abused by demons and the sons of demons.
Noah837 2 years ago
After the flood, the fallen angels once again came to earth and took the daughters of men to be their wives, a whole lot of genetic tampering and manipulation was done and so it was these that Joshua/Moses and the other spies saw in the land that Yah had promised to the Israelites.
Noah837 2 years ago
People miss that wicked and evil angels came down from heaven and took for themselves wives from the daughters of men. And through this unholy and unnatural union were the bloodlines of all humanity once tainted to halt Yahushua from being born or to shed his perfect blood in exchange for ours. And so Yahuwah comanded his servant Noah to build an ark, that the remaining undefiled 8 people on planet earth who were left, might be saved from the destruction Yah would bring upon them by flood.
Noah837 2 years ago
You went to Jesus Camp when you were little, didn't you Christ?
I just looove how any time a Christian is confronted with the cold truth of God's cruelty, their response is ALWAYS, 'We cannot always understand God's ways,' or 'God has a greater plan that we can't understand.' Meaning they've lost. Allowing a tiny baby to suffer is always wrong, even if he visits heaven afterwords.
An equivalent would be a mother beating her child till his bones are broken, but then buy him toys. That still OK?
TechnoMortal 2 years ago
the godz of the bible are the must genocidal motherfuckerz known to man at the first god of the bible the lord god killed everyone that didn't listen to norh than mose had I am he killed everyone that would not obey mose than you have the god that gave isreal land that someone else had already the bible is the work of wicked men and you most look the other way when it comes to facts about how things work put your life on the line for your truth than come and talk about what god has done for you
yoazzma 2 years ago
so our kind and loving God , thinks of his creation as farm animals to be slaightered at whim for his enjoyment ? Cool , nice God .
God violated the laws of thermodynamics etc when he created the universe, world and all else. Why would it apply to him now ?
Satan only killed Jobs family with Gods permission, no one else. God on the other hand seems to love slaughtering people, the flood, egypt firstborns, egypt plagues, lots of people that were inconveniant to his plans, Sodom and Gamorrah
SqueakerAlpha 2 years ago
Squeaker - actually - those are my own pitiful attempts to explain something that we have a very hard time accepting.
christoferL 2 years ago
You said humans think they cant square off against God. I see what youy mean. I find it facinating that God lets us do it--and there are many examples in the Bible.Examples--Cain,JACOB (who wrestled with God)David,Abraham,Johna,Job,Peter,Thomas. God invites us to wrestle with Him--not to dismiss Him!
ScrapGoldBass 2 years ago
Scrap - valid points - but not exactly what I meant.
christoferL 2 years ago
What a half assed way to think...
HallowsEveJack 2 years ago
hallows - better than whole ass...
christoferL 2 years ago
"EVOLUTION IS NOT A F*CKING WORLDVIEW!
It's an explanation of observed facts, like all other scientific theories."
It is a view of how the world operates. Like it or not, it IS a worldview.
"It doesn't mention morality, and being moral does not contradict evolution."
So you claim. I disagree. Your belief on where we come from DIRECTLY impacts your morality.
YHWHisElohim 2 years ago
"You do not NEED to eliminate your competition to gain advantage. And doing so is not necesarily advantageous."
But doing so CANNOT be condemned from your worldview. You have to borrow my God, and my source of value of human life in order to make that criticism.
YHWHisElohim 2 years ago
"According to evolution, natural selection happens. It doesn't say that it's 'beneficial', it just say that it happens"
I guess that is true. I would have been more accurate in saying "according to evolution it's the way the universe functions". Hence, who are you to criticize the normal functioning of the universe, which includes strong genetic material overpowering weaker genetic material.
Again, you have no basis in criticizing one tribe from killing another, based on your beliefs.
YHWHisElohim 2 years ago
"Any criticisms wouldn't be based on evolutionary theory, but that doesn't mean that someone who accepts evolution cannot have a moral reasoning behind why genocide is bad."
"Evolution doesn't claim to be a moral code"
That's really been my point all along. You have to borrow from my world-view the portions of it that you like, in order to criticize what you find objectionable. It's certainly not within your atheistic-evolutionist worldview that this foundation of criticism comes about.
YHWHisElohim 2 years ago
"And I don't think that 'stronger genetic material killing weaker' is necesarily a good thing."
I'm sure you don't. But according to evolution and natural selection it IS beneficial. You are assigning value to the individuals irrespective of genetic mandate.
The only reason you have a problem with this fact, when applied to humans, is because deep down inside you know we are not just animals. You can't suppress ALL of your Creator's imprint upon you ALL of the time.
YHWHisElohim 2 years ago
"a. Surviving long enough to procreate
b. Those procreating are better adapted to the environment than those that don't get to live that long."
Yes. And by eliminating your competition, you gain a genetic advantage. Also, limited resources. If I acquire more land, food, water, etc I can have more offspring, and pass my favorable traits along. This does not exclude killing a whole tribe. This is just basic survival of the fittest.
YHWHisElohim 2 years ago
"It doesn't mention genocide, or in fact how these creatures die."
Exactly. Evolution and survival of the fittest does not concern itself with HOW something dies. Therefore, if I kill my genetic competition, it's no different than if I out reproduce them and my offspring monopolize the resources.
There is no moral foundation for atheistic-evolutionist to criticize one tribe from killing another tribe if it provides a competitive advantage in the gene pool.
YHWHisElohim 2 years ago
"My point is it's not necesarilly the strongest that have to dominate. It's simply that the weakest are unable to reproduce, generally because they don't life long enough "
You are missing the point. You become a walking contradiction when you criticize a being you don't believe in, from a book you think is a fairy tale, for directing the taking of life that according to you is a random accident, when all that happened was stronger genetic material triumphed to be passed on.
YHWHisElohim 2 years ago
"At what point does 'survival' translate into killing the opposition?
If this were true, all species on the planet would be carniverous to some extent "
Killing your own species does not require eating them :-D. Male lions kill other male lions and take the females. Natural selection working well.
One tribe kills another tribe and takes their resources. Natural selection working well.
YHWHisElohim 2 years ago
"1. As an intelligent being, I'm able to understand that if it can happen to others, it can happen to me."
The drive for self-preservation doesn't rule out the consistency of evolution supporting genocide vis-a-vis survival of the fittest.
"2. As a human (with morals, however I got them) I see the slaughter of humans as an immoral act"
Yes but the question is why? A world view based on a random accident creating a bunch of atoms that arranged into people has no basis for your conclusion
YHWHisElohim 2 years ago
"Ah, no... if that were the case, there'd be no diversity within species, and no divergent species (eg. Darwin's finches)."
Diversity comes from random mutation. The beneficial mutations are passed on and proliferate. I would have thought you knew this.
YHWHisElohim 2 years ago
"we tend to dislike things like genocide... and leave that sort of nasty stuff up to Nazis (and god) to do."
Yeah. That's my whole point. You have no basis within your world-view to criticize the Nazis, or God. According to natural selection, eliminating those in your species with weaker traits is justified, and even desirable. That's the whole basis of "survival of the fittest".
YHWHisElohim 2 years ago
....just look at the word genocide >(gene-ocide). That is what survival of the fittest is. Eliminating the genes in the gene pool that are not your own.
Evolution supports genocide, and by nature deems it as benificial.
YHWHisElohim 2 years ago
"In a cage, the physically stronger will probably win. In a complex environment, the more intelligent will."
Yes, and humans use intelligent advantage to make better weapons, and have better battle strategies. Intelligence is part of the fitness mix I'm refering to.
"Evolution doesn't say that one species should kill another."
No. It says the strongest WITHIN a species dominate the gene pool and outcompete, while the other are killed or die. Evolution is a genocide of DNA traits.
YHWHisElohim 2 years ago
"My 'world-view' isn't borrowed from yours. That we see some things similarly doesn't mean that anyone has borrowed from anyone else."
No. It because we have the same Creator. This is why when presented with the innevitible and logical conclusion that natural selection when applied to humans condones genocide as a process of genetic trait ascension, you rightly reject that horrid notion.
YHWHisElohim 2 years ago
"but in the most general sense... it's the ability one organism has to surivive in it's environment."
Yes. And if my tribe kills your tribe, I have increased my ability to survive, and have reduced your ability to survive to zero.
You can only determine we shouldn't let "law of the jungle" or "survival of the fittest" run it's animalistic course, by assuming value to humans. The source of that value comes from my Biblical world view.
YHWHisElohim 2 years ago
"Define stronger. Physically? Mentally?
What is stronger? "
One individual or group possessing any traits that give it a competitive advantage. The strong dominate and pass on their genetic material, thereby increasing the vitality of the species.
Evolution is built on the "genocide" of weak traits, and those that carry them.
YHWHisElohim 2 years ago
I'm sure you are decent enough person to know we are better than broccoli. My point is, you have to borrow from my world-view to arrive at this notion.
Stronger humans killing weaker humans is absolutely the definition of natural selection. Evolution teaches we are just big smart animals. One strong tribe killing another weaker tribe is a natural and beneficial process according to your evolutionary world-view.
YHWHisElohim 2 years ago
"As for the genetic defect/morality issue... are you saying that incest is harmless and does not cause negative outcomes with offspring?"
No. I'm saying that if the choices are: a) incest, b) the end of all human life on earth.....then choice (A) is the more moral choice.
YHWHisElohim 2 years ago
"You can't say they weren't the same race, then say... 'so that makes it not genocide therefore god isn't evil' "
You are violating your own world-view to make this critique. According to your naturalist-evolutionary world view, humans are just accidentally conglomerations of atoms. We are no better than broccoli by that standard.
Secondly, the stronger killing the weaker is the very DEFINITION natural selection. Ergo, your world-view applauds the natural selection that took place.
YHWHisElohim 2 years ago
If you can show me why the stronger, more fit, shouldn't dominate, impose there will upon, and "thin out" the weaker of the species....and do it without borrowing from my Biblical world then you have a valid argument.
As it stands, you have to borrow the morals given by my God to criticize my God, whom you claim doesn't exist.
YHWHisElohim 2 years ago
You are assuming there were was not enough genetic diversity in the group in question. I do not grant that assumption.
We know from B'reshit 6:18 who went into the ark- Noah, his wife, his 3 sons, and his sons WIVES.
Polygamy was common practice in the culture of the time. You have not allowed for the possibility of Noah's sons having multiple wives.
Your assertion of why it is immoral is based on the outcome of genetic defects. If this goes unproven, the objection disappears.
YHWHisElohim 2 years ago
Firstly, I would like to see you prove it is impossible. Secondly, please explain to me where I ever made the claim that the world was literally repopulated by ONLY 2 people?
I simply stated, it's inconsistent to object to this idea on moral grounds based on the circumstances presented.
YHWHisElohim 2 years ago
"And there is never, ever, an excuse for incest"
Well, if it is the only means of repopulating, it is by no means condemnable. It is the only option. Unfortunately you completely failed to address my point.
Also, there is incest in your geneology. There is incest in everyones geneology. That is just the reality of human history, even recent history (times of famine, isolation, etc). I'm assuming you are doing reasonably well inspite of it.
Your objection is illogical.
YHWHisElohim 2 years ago
farmer analogy:
Understand that cows are grown for use in food and drink. They are not intelligent beings. Humans were made to live their own lives. They have the ability to create, destroy, and deduce.
God, in the bible, helps the Jews slaughter millions of people so they could take "the land that was rightfully theirs." He also tells the Levite priests through Moses to kill all the 3,000 other Israelites, and would have killed everyone but Moses JUST BECAUSE THEY WORSHIPPED AN IDOL.
machchunk 2 years ago
(countinued) Not so benevolent, huh?
By the way, biblical claims are STILL being used to justify wars today. Don't you think God would zap some sense into these people instead of watching them kill each other over nothing?
machchunk 2 years ago
"God condone's incest numerous times in the bible."
God doesn't "condone incest". What you, like about 99% of atheists, can't seem to grasp is that there is a difference between DESCRIPTIVE and presciptive. Simply telling what happened is descriptive. Please show me where the Bible says we are to follow the example of Lot in the matter of incest, or where the act of incest is praised as a good thing?
YHWHisElohim 2 years ago
"God condone's incest numerous times in the bible. Adam and Eve, Noah and family..."
If you assume it is accurate that there is only one family line on earth, how exactly do you suggest human life be repopulated?
This is nothing more than a red herring you have provided. If you are going to argue that the nature of the story is wrong, you have to be willing to grant the presuppositions the story is based on in order to interact with it.
Only 1 family exists. How do we repopulate?
YHWHisElohim 2 years ago
sapperbloggs:
Read the whole story. God did not condone incest. Read what happened to Lot's descendents througout the Bible, as most of them tend to rebel against God.
Also, don't quote mine, see, that's your problem. You quote mine and say, "Aha, God did Genocide..."
No, read the whole post, and read the whole passage in the Bible.
There was no "genocide". They were several races in each city, and they were killed because of HOMOSEXUALITY AND PRIDE against God; not race.
WadeDanielSmith 2 years ago
"and they were killed because of HOMOSEXUALITY AND PRIDE"
Wrong once again, I tire of this utter and stupid and deliberate misinterpretation of the name sodom and the term sodomy.
AsheIsTheRaven 2 years ago
Oh really?
Lets take a look at what the Bible says:
Gen. 19:5 bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
==
Here "know" is speaking of Carnal knowledge, i.e. "sex/rape". This is verified by the fact Lot was literally willing to give them his daughters to prevent them from attempting a homosexual rape of the "men".
Ezekiel 16: 49 lists pride firstly among other sins, though that isn't an exhaustive list.
WadeDanielSmith 2 years ago
Two things fail in that catagory
First of all no where in the bible does it state Sodom was punished for homosexuality but for sexual immorality. It's only bigots like you who interprets that from that one quote
AsheIsTheRaven 2 years ago
Nobody interprets it from that one quote.
Read the whole Bible, and quit quote mining. Homosexuality has always been condemned, and by the way, what do you suppose "sexual immorality" is refering to anyway?
See, here you have a problem, because EITHER WAY God is condemning adultery and fornication, of whatever form, to death penalty, and rightly so.
Also "Sodomite," as it appears later in the bible, always meant "homosexual".
WadeDanielSmith 2 years ago
"Also "Sodomite," as it appears later in the bible, always meant "homosexual"."
No it's not, and it''s not even mentioned in the orginal texts as sodomite.
I end my discussion here as you are obviously another complete denialist.
AsheIsTheRaven 2 years ago
Sapperbloggs:
Do you even know the definition of the word "Genocide"? Sodom and Gomorah were melting pots, they had people of all races in them, so "Genocide" is 100% a false accusation to begin with.
Lots wife looking back is because she longed for the things and the lifestyle of sodom. She is destroyed becuase of her heart condition. the physical act of "looking back" was merely the surface problem, the last straw, if you will.
WadeDanielSmith 2 years ago
Do you know the word Genocide? I think not
In the time Cities were the nations, or maybe this reliastion has slipped your mind convienelty too.
AsheIsTheRaven 2 years ago
Sapperbloggs:
1) God is no respector of persons. God does not pervert judgment.
2) God destroyed an entire city, citing their sins and unrepentance.
therefore:
3) We can safely know that everyone in the city was guilty of a sin worthy of death.
Abraham prays on behalf of Sodom, and God says if there are 10 good people in the city, he would spare them all. This is God's mercy literally looking for an excuse to spare people.
WadeDanielSmith 2 years ago
"This is God's mercy literally looking for an excuse to spare people. "
Or a God who;s not as omnipresent and all knowing as you liek to claim he is. Once again, your claims of all knowing, and perfect judgment once again come into question
AsheIsTheRaven 2 years ago
AsheIsTheRaven:
It is obvious you do not know the word Genocide, because by implication "Genocide" requires the mass killing of a specific RACE of people for no reason other than their race itself.
The destruction of Sodom and Gomorah was because of God's judgement against SIN and had nothing whatsoever to do with race or nationality. The fact is, Lot's wife and sons (mentioned in Gen. 19:12) died also, proving this was NOT a racially motivated act.
WadeDanielSmith 2 years ago
No it is clear that you picked on incident out of many to that show genocide and you make a poor apologist and propagandists would love.
Saddam Hussein was a supporter of alqueda, held weapons of mass destruction and was behind 9/11
Any of this ringing a bell? Opposing nations make up stuff especially when they're on the winning side
Or as Napoleon put it "History is written by the victor"
AsheIsTheRaven 2 years ago
I never said I disliked homosexuals.
They are my brothers, just as all of humanity is and I love them like brothers.
I merely see them as living unhealthy and sinful lives, held down by their pride that stops them from questioning their sin. I have compassion for their suffering and I want them to break free from the bonds of their sin for their own good.
I said "I would do whatever he commanded me to do"
Find me 1 religion in the world where a follower would not do what their GOD asked.
Dorakuwel 2 years ago
Funny that, I know man healthy homosexuals and just as many unhealthy Christian Heterosexuals
Could be because the homosexual has more faith in science than you
AsheIsTheRaven 2 years ago
Disobedient children only affect their families these days, yet todays homosexuals have a tendancy to try to make a spectacle of themselves and affect entire communities. If they kept their lustful practises modest, and to themselves, there would be little need to protest I think.
If it was proved to me 100% that GOD willed me to do something, then of course I would do whatever he commanded me to do. If I was not 100% sure then no I would not, it could just be Satan trying to deceive me.
Dorakuwel 2 years ago
To understand the concept you have to read the conclusions in each chapter of Leviticus to understand the relevence of the chapters rules.
The end of chapter 11(which contains the shellfish rule) is "'These are the regulations concerning animals, birds, every living thing that moves in the water and every creature that moves about on the ground. You must distinguish between the unclean and the clean, between living creatures that may be eaten and those that may not be eaten."
Dorakuwel 2 years ago
"But god's rules about eating shellfish, wearing clothes of mixed threads or how to sow crops don't apply any more?"
Those rules were to do with Hygiene and other concerns for an ancient people who knew little of such things. They are insightful and useful, yet they are not moral laws, but health based laws.
The shellfish one for instance is because the shellfish are bottom feeders, muck filterers etc. and therefore full of disease that could not be cleansed or prepared by ancient man.
Dorakuwel 2 years ago
Show me where in bioble it says it was about hygiene, please
AsheIsTheRaven 2 years ago
"If one of them(animal carcass) falls into a clay pot, everything in it will be unclean, and you must break the pot. Any food that could be eaten but has water on it from such a pot is unclean, and any liquid that could be drunk from it is unclean. Anything that one of their carcasses falls on becomes unclean; an oven or cooking pot must be broken up. They are unclean, and you are to regard them as unclean."Lev11:33-35
Does that sound like a moral issue to you?
Dorakuwel 2 years ago
Again you misuse the translation as you often do with the translation of Virgin. You know damn well what unclean meant, and if you were half the scholar you claimed to be, you'd be more honest about it.
Also how many shell fish do you know you could find in the middle of the desert for forty when according to the bible all they had to eat was mana?
AsheIsTheRaven 2 years ago
Ahem, "So god's rule for the Jews about homosexuality still applies" Huh??
I specifically said the rules do not apply to us gentiles, how can you turn around and say that they do?? you don't make sense.
I said that the fact the rule exists is proof GOD considers male homosexuality a sin. That means we need to teach men to overcome their lustful desires to defile their brothers, to never accept it as natural, but to oppose it like any sin.
We are not expected to stone them, or imprison them.
Dorakuwel 2 years ago
Ahem Sapper "Its use for us is to show us through real life example what GOD considers sin e.g. male homosexuality."
That is why we use it and pronounce it, it clearly shows what GOD considers sin and if you read it, there are many laws that no-one should ever disagree with(like the anti-bestiality law), yet when we point out the male homosexuality issue, that one is apparently 'off limits'.
GOD is the ultimate authority on what is good and what is evil.
Dorakuwel 2 years ago
Yes GOD did destroy many of his creations, starting with the great flood that wiped out ALL humanity except a single family. That would be Noah, his 3 sons and their wives.
GOD has a right to destroy any of us if he sees fit, he was the one who created us so he has the right to destroy us if we go bad.
Do people not throw out rotten fruit?, do we not burn diseased corpses? Is it so wrong to cut out an infection to stop it spreading to healthy parts of the body?
Dorakuwel 2 years ago
The chapter of Leviticus was the law given to the Israelites through Moses.
We are gentiles, therefore we are not expected to follow that law.
Its use for us is to show us through real life example what GOD considers sin e.g. male homosexuality.
Of course there are plenty of other rules concerning hygiene that are just good sense, yet were ignored by Christians for centuries, that could have saved many lives.
We follow everything Y'shua taught us, NO Christian should cherry-pick his words.
Dorakuwel 2 years ago
Here is the thing viewers:
1) God is all knowing, therefore, when he passes judgment he does so with perfect knowledge of sinner's heart. His judgments are just and perfect.
2) After the fall in the Garden, God was perfectly within his rights to everyone to hell, and one might even say that, without the Cross of Christ, without a redemption plan, his righteousness would have even REQUIRED him to do so.
WadeDanielSmith 2 years ago
sapper - "Jesus explicitly said that the old covenant was still applicable, and that he wasn't here to change the old laws, only to bring some new ones." I would have to disagree with your interpretation of what Jesus said - the OT is quoted today because within it we can see that which God approves and disapproves. As for killing - that is not the purpose He has set for Christians.
christoferL 2 years ago
Sapper - its not a contradiction - its a difference in purpose. Troy Brown - wide receiver of the NFL's Patriots also played cornerback in the last years of his career. As a wide receiver - his job was to do anything he could to advance the ball and score touchdowns for his team. As a cornerback - his job was to do anything he could do to prevent the advancing of the ball and prevent the scoring of touchdowns. Same guy - different purposes. I hope this helps.
christoferL 2 years ago
Thats an interesting point of view - yeah - Jesus spoke of how He didn't come to abolish the law or the prophets - and then He gave the Law He spoke of - which differed from Mosiac Law - hmmmmm.... as I said - btw - same God different agenda
christoferL 2 years ago
Then Paul comes along and over rules Jesus which conveniently your all fine with
And you still don;t see whay we see the hypocrisy in your religion
AsheIsTheRaven 2 years ago
Paul never over ruled Jesus - he was a servant of Christ that which the Lord told him to do - its remarkable how bitter you truly are over all of this
christoferL 2 years ago
No no of course he didn't
Just as God never said "blood sacrifice is unnecessary for my forgiveness"
Paul contradicted a lot you refuse to acknowledge
AsheIsTheRaven 2 years ago
What happened under the Old Covenant was the same God different agenda. The New Covenant changes everything.
christoferL 2 years ago
"What happened under the Old Covenant was the same God different agenda"
Different agenda, old covenant. Two excuse for
1: A God that has no idea
2: Not following the rules we don't like
AsheIsTheRaven 2 years ago
"Different agenda, old covenant. Two excuse for 1: A God that has no idea 2: Not following the rules we don't like"
Really Ashe? When you are presented with a simple, obvious answer that is easily demonstrated through the scriptures its an excuse? And then - just in case some one challenges that you claim its an excuse to not follow rules? Really?
And you wonder why I do not respect your brand of 'logic'? Really?
christoferL 2 years ago
The evidence is paramount, and only really overlooked by those who have similar issues to those who blindingly follow cult leaders and lemonade drinkers.
Your simple and obvious answers are not backed up by biblical text
AsheIsTheRaven 2 years ago
No - if we were actually livestock - you wouldn't be trying to judge Him... it was an imperfect analogy used to illustrate a point.
An answer to your question: No - because God would not ask me to kill.
christoferL 2 years ago
"if we were actually livestock - you wouldn't be trying to judge Him"
are you saying a Cow is incapable f judging his master when eventually he decides to butcher him?
Maybe the cow cannot copmpriehend the full ramifications or logic, but "This man who fed me and cared for me is now about to kill me" is a very simple statement. How do you know what a cow thinks in his final hours. No animal I know calmly accepts it's demise
AsheIsTheRaven 2 years ago
ashe - absolutely. I don't believe cows have the capacity to judge. The instinct to survive doesn't imply intelligence - even plats will grow towards the sun in order to survive... or would you argue they are judging objects that block them from the sun light?
christoferL 2 years ago
Obviously. Animals do not suffer from fear, survival instincts, the ability to juedge a threat or whatever.
They are souless, unthinking, beasts with no instictual concepts of trust, fear, companionship or enemy. Even though nature proves otherwise
AsheIsTheRaven 2 years ago
we are god's cattle and not his children in other words
emuholic 2 years ago
emu - No - if we were actually livestock - you wouldn't be trying to judge Him... it was an imperfect analogy used to illustrate a point. This is a true statement however - if you don't accept Jesus Christ as your savior - you are not a child of God - but instead a child of Satan... so says the scriptures.
christoferL 2 years ago
child of satan? if thats the case then anyone who doesnt worship him he doesnt own, so he doesnt have the right to kill them. why did he instruct people to kill unbelievers then (as in the scriptures)? they arent his belongings, theyre satans, he has no say in what happens to satans belongings.
if youre trying to justify him killing his creation then the only way it could be acceptable based on the way youve explained it would be if we were his livestock and not his children
emuholic 2 years ago
a father doesnt love his livestock like he loves his kids, and im sure youre reasonable enough to realise how absurd it is for a farmer to take his kids lives like he would livestock. if god is a good father and is all about love and forgiveness it would be totally out of that character for him to kill his kids.
emuholic 2 years ago
trying to justify him murdering his children by saying "hes god, hes above human morality and he's beyond your understanding" is nonsense. no matter how omnipotent they may be, power and status doesnt make their actions good, necessary or right. its a logical fallacy to suggest power/status/who or what they/she/he is makes their actions unquestionably right and if you dont agree it's cuz you arent intelligent enough -- simply cuz you arent a god -- to understand.
emuholic 2 years ago
emu - I wouldn't expect you to agree with me - because you can't conceive that there is a higher power to begin with... we are talking about a being who was not born, will not die, and doesn't live in our concept of time.
christoferL 2 years ago
"Who do you think Satan ultimately belongs to? In other words - Satan, being a fallen angel - was once a non-fallen angel... starting to get the picture?"
so now youre saying satan belongs to god, so anything that belongs to satan actually belongs to god. so why not just cut out the middle man and just say nonbelievers belong to god and anything bad that happens to them is gods will and not satans.
if you want to know whats imperfect, its your beliefs. they dont add up.
emuholic 2 years ago
youre going far with your imperfect beliefs.
"emu - I wouldn't expect you to agree with me - because you can't conceive that there is a higher power to begin with... we are talking about a being who was not born, will not die, and doesn't live in our concept of time."
i can conceive it just fine, i just dont believe it. its faith, so why speak of your faith as though it is fact. that is crossing over into delusional territory.
emuholic 2 years ago
you criticise others saying they shouldnt comment on what they dont understand, and you say we all dont understand the immortal being outside of time and space, yet you must think you understand him in order to jump to his defence and speak in quite some detail about where he is, why he does the things he does (you speak of agendas) and everything else, including why he takes lives. whats so special about you?
emuholic 2 years ago
why does god need your help anyway? why cant he defend himself?
emuholic 2 years ago
and if your answer to why you have to defend him is "hes god, he doesnt involve himself in our triviality", well if thats the case then why do you think he involves himself in your life, answers your prayers and gives a shit about you or anyone else on this tiny planet in this universe that is so large we truly are all so insignificant to it. whether god exists is one matter, but you think an intervening, supervising one exists which insists on a book being made. that is even harder to believe.
emuholic 2 years ago
You are going to far with my imperfect analogy - but thats ok - because you don't believe in God anyways - so it wouldn't make sense not matter what analogy I presented.
christoferL 2 years ago
Who do you think Satan ultimately belongs to? In other words - Satan, being a fallen angel - was once a non-fallen angel... starting to get the picture? Everything is God's to do with as He will - like it or not.
christoferL 2 years ago
"Everything is God's to do with as He will - like it or not. "
Two problems there
1: That makes you a coward
2: And if you're wrong, you are gambling a lot of people on a simple "faith" Or "Beleief" that your right when constantly we see so many people with a personal realationship with Christ behaving so evily, and peope like you who just support them, back them up or make excuses for them
Jesus must have a hell of a split personality to have so many conflicting ideas with his "mates"
AsheIsTheRaven 2 years ago
1: That makes you a coward - actually - I think that makes me obedient - hardly a coward. Its stupidity to run into a brick wall head first - not bravery.
2. If I am wrong? Whether I am right or wrong - it isn't like I could do anything either way... the Will of God is God's alone...
Also - not all who claim the HS have the HS - if they don't bare the fruits - they are pretenders...
christoferL 2 years ago
1: Liek I said, people were obiedieant to other tyrants in the past, your answer only shows even more how cowardly that is? A brick wall? Chris, I'm not the one ignoring passages, you are.
3: "Gods will alone" no Chris, it's your choice, and one you are comfortable with, like those who sat at the picinic.
Also - I happen to agree - but your claims to "personal relationship with Christ" has no real power considering. especially given your answers do not help your case, save to the converted
AsheIsTheRaven 2 years ago
I don't think you can apply a title like 'good' or 'evil' to God. Concepts of good and evil are very much human inventions, which would be difficult to apply to something very inhuman (not necessarily in a pejorative sense) like God.
Tineafa 2 years ago
One important thing to remember is many of the stories about friends and family of some serial killers. It is also common for pedophile cases and kidnappers.
The family is often 'Shocked' they talk about how he was such a kind person, seemed loving and no-one expected him to do such a thing, etc.
Humans can not see into the hearts of other humans, that is why a human judging like a GOD is a tyrant.
GOD sees ALL that people are and he knows the absolute truth of our guilt or innocence.
Dorakuwel 2 years ago
One another improtant thing to remember is that 95% of pedophiles were heterosexual
AsheIsTheRaven 2 years ago
The would be trivial fact #37248 right?
A sexual degenerate is a sexual degenerate, do we really need to categorise them?
Dorakuwel 2 years ago
Halleluyah Our Father.
God is good all the time. One has to be good to understand Good and there is not of us that is Good. Think of what I'm saying here. Are we really Good?
Brother Phil.
ath16 2 years ago
Interesting approach in appealing to non-creatibility of energy and matter on this issue.
I never thought of it that way before.
YHWHisElohim 2 years ago
Hey ATR, have you ever read the bible all the way through?
Dorakuwel 2 years ago
Dorak if I had a pneyy for evrytime that question was asked
yes, it was my major
AsheIsTheRaven 2 years ago
Ahh good, then how is you have forgotten about the mass amounts of text that talk all about GOD telling his prophets all the horrible things that mankind does and how he wants us to be loving and yet he is compelled to punish us for our evil ways?
The flood was GOD showing he regretted that he had created humans because we were all so evil.
Perhaps you should study a bit of history, then you may see why GOD was so harsh at times, mankinds history is a rather bloody and horrific tale.
Dorakuwel 2 years ago
Tell me how you have forgottenabout the standards by which God mentions "Horrible things"
It's not by the standard you like tho think it was. I seem to remember kids being eaten by She Bears for example for simply being kids. I also seem to remember one of Gods greatest voices being hated by the bible forever because fo the jealousy of moses.
Tell me how you forrget these things
AsheIsTheRaven 2 years ago
Okay, now you need to substantiate your claims, I am prepared to quote verses to show my assertation, so please show me passages about these 2 so that I may see and know.
GOD btw, expects us to be righteous people. He goes into great detail in nearly ever single book about the trangressions of the Israelites, who were actually emulating all the pagan nations around them. Things like oppressing the poor and widows, child sacrifice, mistreating foreigners, murder, perversion, adultery, etc.
Dorakuwel 2 years ago
Oh for gods sake, I hhave dioonwew this before too
Fair enough I'll get my bible for you and educate you too
AsheIsTheRaven 2 years ago
Your Major? You went to Bible College?
christoferL 2 years ago
Comment removed
AsheIsTheRaven 2 years ago
Chris you already know this
AsheIsTheRaven 2 years ago
No - or if I did I forgot - wow - I have to ask - was this a course taught from a Christian point of view or a secular point of view? Like - was it religion you studied that included the Bible - or was it a faith based Bible course?
christoferL 2 years ago
I made it apoint to be taught from both persperctives. I was taught in a secular university with deliberate insight from the CLC then stuidied in isreal for 2 years. I mentioned my credntials in liguistics to you before. it's okay if you forgot though
AsheIsTheRaven 2 years ago
I remember you talking about linguistics - but not the other stuff - but I am sure I forgot.
christoferL 2 years ago
happens :p
AsheIsTheRaven 2 years ago
Those who can get you to believe in absurdities can also get you to commit atrocities......Voltaire
KasparHauser4 2 years ago
Voltaire was wrong.
christoferL 2 years ago
Nope. you have already justified the killing of babies...of breaking their heads open like an egg on rocks by people who believed that god wanted them to do so. It is only a matter of time and circumstance when you start hearing "Voices"
KasparHauser4 2 years ago
"One said Schlosser told him she wanted to cut off her baby's arms and her own limbs and head and give them to God. Other medical testimony referenced erratic behavior and hallucinations, including apostles rising out of bloodfilled streets to announce the apocalypse"
KasparHauser4 2 years ago
Indeed - very sad cases... but I know it wasn't God leading them to that.
christoferL 2 years ago
How do you know?
They had great convinction that he was. Who are you to judge? Are you special in some way that you have all the answers?
AsheIsTheRaven 2 years ago
Test the spirits, Ashe - Jesus would never teach anyone to do anything of the sort - thus - I know...
christoferL 2 years ago
"Test the spirits, Ashe - Jesus would never teach anyone to do anything of the sort"
Which is another way of saying
"Just accept the voice in your head, once you question you might actually learn all kinds of stuff"
AsheIsTheRaven 2 years ago
no - it really isn't - you have to test the spirits against the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles - which are in the New Testament... they never taught we should dismember our children and give them to God - thus we know it wasn't God...
christoferL 2 years ago
lol - Kaspar - you are seriously making me crack up... If anyone were to do what the Jews did today I would opposed to it (note: I am an anti-abortionist)... what I am saying is that was the Old Covenant - that was God's choice - and today - we are in the New Covenant which has none of that in it...
christoferL 2 years ago
Did you say "Eternal hell", Chris? LOL!
theheat151 2 years ago
Ezekial 18:20 "The soul that sinneth, it shall DIE."
theheat151 2 years ago
God isn't genocidal, but the crazed, overzealous misinterpreters of the Word are.
AMetalNinja 2 years ago
god isn't guilty of anything...because there is no god.
NotTooObvious 2 years ago
are you reading that?
NotTooObvious 2 years ago
Ahh on that logic Chris, which is pathetic really I am sorry to be harsh,
I can kill my child because she is my creation. I can destroy my hospital because it was my creation, even though I know the suffering such an act would cause.
I judge your god by my standards because of his human nature and the fact he was created in mans image not the other way around
"Hey let my people go and the sufferign will stop, by the way I'll make sure your to stuuborn to listen to reason"
AsheIsTheRaven 2 years ago
You don't create the life - you are merely a tool used in the creation of life. If you own the hospital - then I dare say you can destroy it. You are mistaken about God having a 'human nature' - we were created in His image - but of course - I am debating this with a man who doesn't know God - so your argument is sound in the sense that it is what you believe...
christoferL 2 years ago
Chris, if God doesnt exist you have just made the argument for my right to desroy life
Is that right? no it's wrong
The problem is you don't understand the point I am making. Take God out of the equation does it it mean I still have that right or it makes it right?
Tell me anything in the bible that shows how God is not created in the ideal image of man's own aspirations. You'd be hard pressed to find it. The bible, once again is contradictory, full of holes and political intent
AsheIsTheRaven 2 years ago
Take God out of the equation and the Jews had no right - and since God is no longer asking people to kill for Him (as far as I know) then there is no right for men to kill... You ask me to nything in the bible that shows how God is not created in the ideal image of man's own aspirations - but the Bible was written by men inspired by God - it is limited to the abilities of those inspired men - what your asking is like asking me what a certain flower smells like by looking at a photo.
christoferL 2 years ago
Well God is very human and absent minded for a perfect deity with no faults and absolute control over his creation.
AsheIsTheRaven 2 years ago
Hmmmm.... the creation is now trying to evaluate the creator... based on his own limited vision... his own limited scope... interesting.
christoferL 2 years ago
"Hmmmm.... the creation is now trying to evaluate the creator... based on his own limited vision... his own limited scope... interesting."
Nope I'm basing a fictional character based on a fictional account with history, logic, science and common sense.
There is little to evaluate when you God displays nothing more than the childish antics of an angry man with Alzheimer
AsheIsTheRaven 2 years ago
Comment removed
DaeDeimos13 2 years ago
awe stink........ I was trying to pause the video, and missed the button and hit the one star. Totally didn't mean to. Good vid.
KelsoFabulous 2 years ago
why can't ppl understand god can do whatever he wants. ppl don't seem to get that. i pray for mercy on ppl that just dont' get it yet.
weare138mike 2 years ago
"why can't ppl understand god can do whatever he wants."
yes we hear it all the time, the often used excuse
AsheIsTheRaven 2 years ago
Often used 'excuse' or just the way it is? If we are right Ashe - then it won't be an excuse but a matter of fact -
christoferL 2 years ago
Often used an an excuse Chris.
Not one can you prove that your idea of God exists but in political manifest ion to control a gullible and desperate people looking for identity
Also to be frank all you have done is literally take "responsibity" and maturity well out of the picture
If killing was part of a "Plan" then really it falls to bad planning
AsheIsTheRaven 2 years ago
Ashe - let me ask you - if trees could talk - and they could express themselves - how would they feel about people coming along - cutting them down - using them for homes, furniture, paper, toilet paper - etc? - yet we preserve the trees that we find pleasing - for our own pleasure. I am sure they would protest... just as people are doing - no?
christoferL 2 years ago
Erm now we're going down another logical falicy.
There is a difference between Moral society where right and wrong has been wrought out of centuries of trial, error and stupidity and the natural way of things
My killing a child I created is wrong, because thats how our nature determines. My killing another animal for food or survival is not a moral issue, it's something else entirely.
(cont)
AsheIsTheRaven 2 years ago
Umm, you can't actually create a child. The best you can do is squirt some DNA in accordance with a natural process. ...and that is your own logical fallacy.
DaeDeimos13 2 years ago
*meep* wrong
The dna is my contribution to the act of creation therefore I am the creator. stop arguing with strawman and hopeful wisdom. It doesn't work.
You may as well saya man doesnt create a car from the plans he has, or a stack of shelves
AsheIsTheRaven 2 years ago
ashe - it works wonderfully for me - if you are happy with who and what you are - then so be it - but you shouldn't expect your ranting to change my mind or my heart in any way...
christoferL 2 years ago
Ranting?
Is that persecution complex coming into play again Chris? Come on
Lets just put into perspective what you just said
"because he's god and he can"
If that sits well with you then to be honest Chris it only compounds my earlier arguments with you about the kind of society you deny you support. That you would allow the odd bruising your ego to overcome debate frankly only dissapoints me further.
AsheIsTheRaven 2 years ago
no a persecution complex - just boredom... ""because he's god and he can" sits fine with me... I support God - His will - and His Way - which, as taught by Christ, means I share the Gospel and trust in the Lord (not taking what I think His will to be into my own hands). Frankly Ashe - you are like a broken record - and it just gets old - I suppose the same could be said about me - but you came HERE - lol - I didn't go THERE...
christoferL 2 years ago
Frankly Chris you're like a true bigot who;'s ego got hurt and decided to end the friendship because of one comment of disagreement.
You insulted me and I took offense, you canceled the friendship becasue you didn't like my taking offense to it. If anyone shoudl have called it off it was me.
Broken record away Chris, the fact of the matter is this. make videos on the question peole have and if your answers are full of holes expect to be taken up on them. (cont)
AsheIsTheRaven 2 years ago