Thread: Is it possible for us as men to have a discussion on God

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Were they even killed for his sin (if there was any?) Isn't that an assumption? You'll have to read the book

If job was perfect, then they died for the purpose of God making his point.
If he wasn't (and it was a punihsment) they died for his sin.

From the KJB

1:18 While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said, Thy sons and thy daughters were eating and drinking wine in their eldest brother's house: 1:19 And, behold, there came a great wind from the wilderness, and smote the four corners of the house, and it fell upon the young men, and they are dead; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

I don't understand - are you saying that God instituted slavery? Or that he supports it by not smiting the slaveowners? (I also don't know that Job even had any slaves - read the book!)

[/QUOTE]

Hm. You seem to have me there. I checked in the KJB and there they speak of servants, not slaves.
I remember reading it was slaves, somewhere. Don't remember if it was in a dutch or english text either.
But I can't come up with a reference right now, so retract that statement.

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

Right, but one of the two positions is supported by empirically investigable evidence, while the other is speculation.

Besides, by that analogy, why aren't we all giant insects? Natural selection has no intended end product, so anything that can survive, will. Sexual reproduction wasn't a big enough hindrance to cause extinction, thus it carried on and has shown to be the best method for macroscopic beings to reproduce.

Russel this is dodging the question. I did not ask why sexual reproduction has been continued, but why it was *started* in the first place.... and while you state that one position is speculation and the other is supported by "empirically investigable evidence" you have not backed up this statement with support. You once said that the whole process from start to finish of evolution could be observed in bacteria-then revised this statement to exclude their initial beginnings of their life, then revised with some links showing one gene was found to have been mutated. Likewise I'm still waiting on a link that shows polymers created under natural conditions have been "reproducing". If the evolution process has been observed start to finish-wouldn't it follow that the single cell organisms learned to reproduce sexually, or perhaps became multiple cell organisms? No, they did not. They all died. Not saying it disproves evolution, but it is not the evidence it was claimed to be. Likewise, please give me some evidence here. It is one thing to make statements, but they are much more interesting with the links to support them, especially when the particulars are being used to support an argument.

Originally Posted by mischievous

This is really opening up a can of worms!

There is not much in the bible that is original, most of it is borrowed from Roman paganism as well as from earlier times and other cultures. Jesus is one of many, more than 17 at the latest count, in the god become man series.

And in the beginning Man created God. Unless you believe otherwise of course.

And you have reams of evidence for this first statement? lets see it. Many modern Christian holidays have roots in pagan holidays (the Saturnalia festival, for instance would remind quite a few of modern day "Christmas" (except add in an orgy)and the day to worship the fertility goddess, "Ishtar" is not only the same day as we celebrate "Easter" but even was pronounced the same way-many things were done for political reasons in early Christianity and indeed the newly "converted" Roman Empire) however NONE of these are suggested observances in the Biblical texts.
So...please do post links that support your claims, both of the Bible being based on "Roman paganism" (the way I read the thing, it is heavily infused with the Jewish religion, not Roman) and that Jesus is one of "17 at the latest count, in the god become man series"-the latest account according to whom.
????
Mock if you wish, believe what you wish-but if you are to make arguments based on external facts, link to some information; I promise I will consider them; otherwise it is just so much he-said, she-said. If you choose Paganism, Atheism, or whatever, be my guest-but unless you have some sort of conclusive evidence that one or the other ideas are superior, remember we are all in this same boat and none of these ideas has been proven.

John P.

My understanding of the OT vs. the New is that it shows the development of the relationship of man & God.

If you are dealing with a 2 year old, you do it differently than you would with a 20 year old. A "time out" (or a spanking, if you are of that mindset) is not very effective for a 20 year old, and reasoning and discussion is not very effective for a 2 year old.

What is human nature? If someone simply cuts us off while we are driving what is the usual reaction? "I"M GONNA RUN YOU OFF THE ROAD AND KILL YOU , YOU MUTHA%$##@#!!!!!"

So, at first it was established "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". In other words, you are not allowed to exact anything above and beyond what has been done to you.

Also He set up some house rules. the Ten Commandments.

So, what do we have: The Pharoah of Egypt was given 10 chances, all with fair warning. Each time he was shown the power of God, and yet refused to think that any could be mightier than himself.

In Sodom and Gomorrah, apparently there were no righteous people at all to be found, besides Lot himself.

Same goes with the time before the flood. Only Noah was righteous before God.



As far as the innocents goes, isn't that covered in Commandment #1, as per Exodus 20:5-6?

...for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.

After the fullness of time, God sent His son, Jesus Christ to establish a new covenant with His people. This new covenant wasn't so much about rules and regulations as it was is about love & mercy, both on His behalf, but also required of us.

Originally Posted by JohnP

Russel this is dodging the question. I did not ask why sexual reproduction has been continued, but why it was *started* in the first place.... and while you state that one position is speculation and the other is supported by "empirically investigable evidence" you have not backed up this statement with support. You once said that the whole process from start to finish of evolution could be observed in bacteria-then revised this statement to exclude their initial beginnings of their life, then revised with some links showing one gene was found to have been mutated. Likewise I'm still waiting on a link that shows polymers created under natural conditions have been "reproducing". If the evolution process has been observed start to finish-wouldn't it follow that the single cell organisms learned to reproduce sexually, or perhaps became multiple cell organisms? No, they did not. They all died. Not saying it disproves evolution, but it is not the evidence it was claimed to be. Likewise, please give me some evidence here. It is one thing to make statements, but they are much more interesting with the links to support them, especially when the particulars are being used to support an argument.

John P.

Wrong thread for these questions.

If you'll read back through my posts on the creationism thread, you'll find many of your questions have been answered ad nauseum.

If there are still unanswered questions, make a list and I'll respond to it.

Originally Posted by Bruno

If job was perfect, then they died for the purpose of God making his point.
If he wasn't (and it was a punihsment) they died for his sin.

Or maybe they died for their own sin

I know it is supposed to show us the changed the relationship between us.
But before that happened, god was vengeful, and had no qualms killing innocents. Is it fair to punish people who did nothing wrong?
No. And it wasn't then either. If someone commits a crime, we do not prosecute his or her children because that is wrong.

As for the pharaoh... If god had beef with the pharaoh, why take it out on the population? why not smite the pharaoh. Or have his kids get the plague? But no.

sodom and gomorrah? Do you honestly believe that you have a city full of people and everybody is a grave sinner who deserves death? Even the people just trying to make a living? Even the kids going to school or playing in the yard?

And only noah righteous before God? so the rest of the people trying to make a living and basically treating each other like normal human being suddenly deserve death?

...for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.

And this basically makes my point.
If God thinks it is OK to doom unborn generations, just because someone bothers him, then he is a petty god in my eyes. If someone'd do the same thing here on earth, we'd shame that person and protect the innocent.

If God thinks it is OK to doom unborn generations

Does he? Who was it telling Adam and Eve not to sin from the beginning, and that if they did they would die? Did God kill them, or did sin?

Bruno,

Addressing those questions from a Christian perspective would forever derail the thread I think!

Most of us know there are countless ways different people will justify in their minds why God is or isn't right in doing what God has done and said. I think a commonly given reason though is that Jesus provided God an avenue to look past man's imperfections and curse of sin passed down from Adam. You can argue, well why this then? And someone will say, then this. On and on of course, which is what we've been doing - I don't want to take the thread too far off original topic though - what do you think?

Originally Posted by Bruno

And this basically makes my point.
If God thinks it is OK to doom unborn generations, just because someone bothers him, then he is a petty god in my eyes. If someone'd do the same thing here on earth, we'd shame that person and protect the innocent.

Would we indeed?

There is plenty of evidence that would show that left to our own devices, we do not do so well looking after the innocents on our own.

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Does he? Who was it telling Adam and Eve not to sin from the beginning, and that if they did they would die? Did God kill them, or did sin?

Bruno,

Addressing those questions from a Christian perspective would forever derail the thread I think!

Most of us know there are countless ways different people will justify in their minds why God is or isn't right in doing what God has done and said. I think a commonly given reason though is that Jesus provided God an avenue to look past man's imperfections and curse of sin passed down from Adam. You can argue, well why this then? And someone will say, then this. On and on of course, which is what we've been doing - I don't want to take the thread too far off original topic though - what do you think?

I think you're right.

This isn't supposed to be a Christian theology discorse...

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

Wrong thread for these questions.

If you'll read back through my posts on the creationism thread, you'll find many of your questions have been answered ad nauseum.

If there are still unanswered questions, make a list and I'll respond to it.

Russel...
No, they are related.
Post your support for your claim. This thread is about God's existence.
Likewise, while you have posted links to experiments in the other thread so far you have failed to find any that support your theory that creation should not be allowed in the classroom (the other thread-sorry guys) let alone that it did not happen. Ad nauseum? Not quite.

Answer the ones already posted, and give some links to real evidence; otherwise the logic follows that we would still be reproducing asexually, or that the cells you referenced in the other thread, having gone through the complete evolution process of course, would have developed this trait.