(Re-post for Passover)
Today at sunset is the beginning of Passover, a religious festival celebrating the mass murder of every non-Jewish "firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast." And the murderer is God himself.
Of course God had a motive for the murders. The Israelites (his favorite people) were enslaved by the Pharaoh, and God wanted them to be set free. And he tried all sorts of things to get Pharaoh's attention.
First he taught Moses some magic tricks. Like how to throw his rod on the ground and turn it into a snake. Then grab the snake by the tail and make it a rod again.
And the LORD said unto him, What is that in thine hand? And he said, A rod. And he said, Cast it on the ground. And he cast it on the ground, and it became a serpent; and Moses fled from before it. And the LORD said unto Moses, Put forth thine hand, and take it by the tail. And he put forth his hand, and caught it, and it became a rod in his hand. Exodus 4:2-4
Next God showed Moses how to make his hand leprous and then cure it.
And the LORD said furthermore unto him, Put now thine hand into thy bosom. And he put his hand into his bosom: and when he took it out, behold, his hand was leprous as snow. And he said, Put thine hand into thy bosom again. And he put his hand into his bosom again; and plucked it out of his bosom, and, behold, it was turned again as his other flesh. Exodus 4:6-7
And finally, God taught Moses to turn water into blood.
And it shall come to pass, if they will not believe also these two signs, neither hearken unto thy voice, that thou shalt take of the water of the river, and pour it upon the dry land: and the water which thou takest out of the river shall become blood upon the dry land. Exodus 4:9
God knew that none of this would work though, since he planned to harden Pharaoh's heart. (I guess he just wanted Moses to show off his magic tricks in front of Pharaoh anyway.)
And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go. Exodus 4:21
So God teaches Moses the magic tricks and then hardens the Pharaoh's heart to ensure that the tricks won't work. How's that for an intelligently designed plan?
But God had another plan up his sleeve: murder.
And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn: And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn. Exodus 4:23
In the very next verse, God's plans are interrupted by another divine impulse to kill. God tries to kill Moses!
And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him. Exodus 4:24
The Bible doesn't say why God tried to kill Moses, but it had something to do with foreskins. Here's what the holy book says.
Then Zipporah [Moses' wife] took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me. Exodus 4:25
Makes sense to me. But back to the main murder story.
Moses recruits his brother, Aaron, to be his spokesman (since Moses has "uncircumscribed lips") and Aaron performs the rod to serpent magic trick for the Pharaoh. But darn it all! Pharaoh's magicians know that trick, too. Luckily it ends well, since Aaron's rod/snake swallows theirs.
And Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh, and before his servants, and it became a serpent. Then Pharaoh also called the wise men and the sorcerers: now the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments. For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents: but Aaron's rod swallowed up their rods. Exodus 7:10-12
Even with such a great trick, the Pharaoh was still unconvinced. But then I guess that was because God hardened his heart again.
And he hardened Pharaoh's heart, that he hearkened not unto them.Exodus 7:13
So enough with the tricks. It's time for God to get serious. He begins with the famous ten plagues of Egypt. I won't go through all that, since I want to complete this post while it's still passover. But here's a list.
- Rivers turned to blood. (Pharaoh's magicians did this one too.) Exodus 7:17-24 BT
- Frogs. (The magicians know the frog trick too!) Exodus 8:1-7 BT
- Lice. (This is the first trick that the magicians couldn't do. I guess lice are harder to make than frogs.) Exodus 8:16-19 BT
- Flies (continuing the frogs and lice theme) Exodus 8:21 BT
- All cattle in Egypt die. Exodus 9:3-6 BT
- Boils and blains upon man and beast. Exodus 9:9 BT
- Hail. Exodus 9:19 BT
- Locusts. Exodus 10: 4-15 BT
- Three days of darkness. Exodus 10:21-23 BT
- God kills all Egyptian firstborn humans and animals. Exodus 12: 29-30 BT
It is, of course, the last plague that is celebrated at passover, with the focus on how God knew who to kill.
Even for God, mass murder is a complicated and messy business. But God learned from his previous mistakes. In Noah's flood and at Sodom and Gomorrah, God didn't worry too much about collateral damage. He just drowned or burned to death everyone (except Noah, Lot, and some family members). This time, though, God wanted to be more selective in his killings.
So how did he decide which children to kill? Well, here's what he came up with.
Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying ... they shall take to them every man a lamb ... without blemish, a male of the first year ... and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening. And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses. ... For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast. ... And when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt. Exodus 12: 3-13
You've got to hand it to God. That is quite a plan.
God himself will come down and kill every firstborn child and animal (How did he know which was firstborn?) except for in houses that had lamb's blood smeared on door posts. But if he sees blood on door posts he will "passover" that house and refrain from murdering any children or pets.
And, if you are foolish and nasty enough to believe in the Bible, that is exactly what God did.
At midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle ... and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead. Exodus 12: 29-30
How could anyone celebrate passover or worship the God of the passover plot?
76 comments:
So wait. God knew which people and animals were firstborn, but wasn't omniscient enough to tell which ones were Jewish as opposed to Egyptian?
I'm not an expert, nor omniscient myself, but it seems like the easier task would be discerning the Egyptians from the Jews, as opposed to trying to determine birth order.
"How could anyone celebrate passover or worship the God of the passover plot?"
People have and still do. What exactly are you arguing other then presenting your own biases?
The way I read it, he seems to be arguing against celebrating the killing of people strictly based on their ethnicity.
And also the omniscience of a deity who can't identify the ethnicity of people without the aid of sheep blood.
God didn't kill the Egyptian firstborn simply because they were 'Egyptian'. Any Israelite who didn't paint their doorposts with blood would have suffered exactly the same fate.
And the blood was a test of faith, similar to many, many other examples in Scripture where God requires specific acts to be carried out by people as a test of their faith.
So then why did God seem to think that killing the Egyptians was a kind, just and loving idea?
And what alternate reading of "...when I smite the land of Egypt." can you offer us?
So then why did God seem to think that killing the Egyptians was a kind, just and loving idea?
I'm not sure how you're coming to this conclusion.
And what alternate reading of "...when I smite the land of Egypt." can you offer us?
The Israelites were in the land of Egypt. If they hadn't done what God commanded them to do, they would have died as well.
Reading this and other posts in the blog, and some of the exegesis in the SAB, I wonder how it is that the idea that God is a god of love got started...
If I believed in God, it would be fear, literal fear of arbitrary and disproportionate punishment, that would alone sustain my faith.
Thank Christ there's no good reason to believe in such a monstrous deity!
Thank you Steve for taking the time to spell all this out. I knew bits and pieces of the story and thought Passover was a pretty barbaric notion, but never realized just how horrible the whole thing was until your summary.
Jason, you said: "The Israelites were in the land of Egypt. If they hadn't done what God commanded them to do, they would have died as well."
Wouldn't a better solution have been not to kill any firstborn, Egyptian or Israelite? Certainly you do not believe that every single firstborn Egyptian male deserved to die. This would seem a bit racist on your or God's part to assume that all Egyptian 1st born males were alike and deserve to die. If God can harden hearts, can he not "soften" them as well? Certainly at least one or two of them could have been convinced to start worshipping Yahweh.
Alternately, since it was the Pharaoh who was behind the enslaving of the Israelites, God could have simply killed Pharaoh (and maybe a few key supporters) and freed the Israelites (and the Egyptians) from Pharaoh's wretched rule. This would have resulted in thousands upon thousands of fewer deaths than killing all Egyptian male firstborn and any Israelites who neglected to put sheep blood on their door.
Does God just really has a thing for lamb's blood? Maybe he decided if he really had to visit all the houses in Egypt, he at least wanted to see some lamb's blood. Maybe it's kind of like Santa's thing for milk and cookies when he comes through town on Christmas. Although I haven't heard of the mass murder of all the firstborn males who didn't leave out milk and cookies for Santa, even if they had been "naughty" all year or didn't truly believe he existed.
I apologize if you or anyone else doesn't enjoy the comparison to Santa, but it's the nicest one I can think of. I find the Passover story in extremely poor taste and am horrified that I was taught this as a kid and apparently thought it was okay. I shudder to think millions of other kids are learning this story and being told it's okay or even righteous for God to kill all those people.
Of all the things to defend God and the Bible on, I don't see how anyone who actually stops and thinks about it could seriously think what God supposedly did for Passover was okay.
PS Of course, instead of murdering Pharaoh and his supporters, God could have just fended them off for a while like Sconner suggested, or put them into a deep sleep for 24 hours, or any number of things not involving death.
I only mentioned things that would involve less killing. It should go without saying that a solution not involving murder is infinitely preferable to one that does involve murder, but given the context I decided I should come out and say it instead of just assuming this was a given.
Anon,
You're asking hypothetical questions which have no answers. If you think you know better then God, so be it.
"If you think you know better then God, so be it."
As Jason said, thinking he knows what god wants, and thinks.
"You're asking hypothetical questions which have no answers."
Ah, but they do point to answers. It points out all the glaring absurdities of the passover and sheds light on a diety that possessing human flaws and characteristics which demonstrates this is an obvious piece of fiction and the Bible god is a painful human construct.
These hypotheticals, spark questions and doubt; something Jason can not answer so he must brush them under the rug and pretend they have no meaning in this arena of ideas.
--S.
As Jason said, thinking he knows what god wants, and thinks.
If you think you would have done things differently, so be it. But this isn't a valid argument for or against anything.
"You're asking hypothetical questions which have no answers."
Ah, but they do point to answers. It points out all the glaring absurdities of the passover and sheds light on a diety that possessing human flaws and characteristics which demonstrates this is an obvious piece of fiction and the Bible god is a painful human construct.
Absurdity is strictly relative though. It's not grounds to disprove, or prove, anything.
These hypotheticals, spark questions and doubt; something Jason can not answer so he must brush them under the rug and pretend they have no meaning in this arena of ideas.
I didn't say they don't have meaning. I just fail to see the relevance or what you're ultimately trying to achieve by posing these sorts of questions.
Jason: "You're asking hypothetical questions which have no answers. If you think you know better then God, so be it[...]I didn't say they don't have meaning. I just fail to see the relevance or what you're ultimately trying to achieve by posing these sorts of questions."
The relevance is trying to break free from the idea that there is a God who thinks killing all the firstborn males of a nation or race is a good idea. I used to believe in the Bible. I remember learning this story as a kid. I don't remember finding it strange that God was killing all these people. That's what's scary, in my opinion. If you're told as a kid (or even as an adult) that God did it, then most people don't question it: it must be okay. Is it no wonder that so many have been killed, and continue to be killed, in the name of religion if we're told that God not only thinks it's okay to commit murder, but does so himself?
Now that I look back on the Passover story, after a long and difficult journey of questioning and re-evaluating my beliefs, I see it is a ghastly story. It took me a long time to be able to step back and realize stories like this shouldn't be accepted at face value. You are of course completely free to believe as you'd like, and I appreciate the fact that you seem to believe the same thing for me. But in my opinion, questioning Bible stories like this is essential to moving past killing and hatred and moving towards the peace and love that many Christians are actually seeking in (or in spite of) the Bible.
The relevance is trying to break free from the idea that there is a God who thinks killing all the firstborn males of a nation or race is a good idea.
It's a part of Jewish history. There's nothing to break free from.
Is it no wonder that so many have been killed, and continue to be killed, in the name of religion if we're told that God not only thinks it's okay to commit murder, but does so himself?
It is a wonder considering there's nothing in Scripture that states God says it's okay for people to commit murder.
But in my opinion, questioning Bible stories like this is essential to moving past killing and hatred and moving towards the peace and love that many Christians are actually seeking in (or in spite of) the Bible.
Questioning Bible stories doesn't make them go away. History is filled with violence, and the history of the Jews is no different.
Jason said,
"It is a wonder considering there's nothing in Scripture that states God says it's okay for people to commit murder."
You keep forgetting this Jason, Genesis 9:5-6 "I created humans to be like me, and I will punish any animal or person that takes a human life. If an animal kills someone, that animal must die. And if a person takes the life of another, that person must be put to death."
So it's OK for people to kill murders in the eyes of god.
I'm so confused, the ten commandments say do not kill but if you do kill you have to kill that person. But the ten commandments say do not kill. Hmmmmmmmmmm? What should we do god? kill or don't kill? This Deity isn't very clear is he?
But what God makes perfectly clear is, he thinks it's OK to commit murder by allowing unacceptable, first born sons to be sacrificed, to him, so he can horrify the people. Ezekiel 20:26
Nothing says love, like horrifying the people.
Jason said, "I didn't say they don't have meaning. I just fail to see the relevance or what you're ultimately trying to achieve by posing these sorts of questions."
Your beliefs have absolutely, NO credibility and are based on nothing more than what was written by several differing men, who were trying to understand what god meant to them, in their own specific time frame, and own specific culture, from an array of varying perspectives, over thousands and thousands of years. Men said and wrote, under the guise of god's supposed voice, to lend credibility, where there was none. Today, Jason, you do the same thing; you use the Bible, with the supposed authority of god, to push varying agendas -- some polluted, or perverted or some seriously dangerous, with absolutely no credibility, except for the deluded viability in your own mind, based, not in reason, but in the lack of reason, what you call faith. You've got nothing.
Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the spot of every wind. With such persons, gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason and the mind becomes a wreck.
-- Thomas Jefferson
Jason said "It's a part of Jewish history. There's nothing to break free from."
For me, there was definitely something to break free from. I felt I had to serve the God from this book, and that everything the book said was true. I needed to realize I didn't have to live my life based on this book and that I didn't have to live in fear of burning in hell for all eternity if I did something its god didn't like. "We justly deserve your present and eternal punishment" I was taught to recite and believe.
Stating that the Bible is just Jewish history is oversimplifying. It is presented by many to many as the one true word of God that is the only key to avoiding everlasting torture.
Jason said: "It is a wonder considering there's nothing in Scripture that states God says it's okay for people to commit murder."
It depends on how you define murder, I suppose. I meant it in the "vulgar" sense of killing brutally or senselessly. If you definite murder as "unlawful" killing and we go by Biblical law, then I guess a Christian wouldn't call them murders since God presumably can't break the law. So I'll concede this point as a difference in perspective.
But there are numerous times God tells people to kill that would be clearly considered murders under any definition in modern times in the US and much of the world. People are commanded to kill gays, fortune tellers, witches, people who worship other gods, people who work on the Sabbath, kids who curse their parents, and so on. I can look up the verses if you'd like, but there are plenty of cases where God calls on people to kill (your word) or murder (my word).
Jason said "History is filled with violence, and the history of the Jews is no different."
So why put all this violence in a holy book? If you truly think that it's just history and that it's just because people back then were violent, why does the "living Bible" still contain it? Why doesn't the Pope or someone come out and say this book (or at least its Old Testament) is not divinely inspired, but just the history of a group of people who, like many peoples around the world, went around killing everyone they came across to gain land, power, and wealth. They either truly thought God wanted them to do this, or they used him as an excuse to do all their killing. But in any case, as people living in the modern, civilized world, we don't think that every firstborn male of a country should be killed because they don't have lamb's blood on their door.
Sconnor said: So it's OK for people to kill murders in the eyes of god.
You originally said God says it’s okay for people to commit murder. Now you’re saying God says it’s okay for people to kill murderers. As the two are quite different, which is it?
I'm so confused, the ten commandments say do not kill but if you do kill you have to kill that person. But the ten commandments say do not kill. Hmmmmmmmmmm? What should we do god? kill or don't kill? This Deity isn't very clear is he?
What’s not clear?
But what God makes perfectly clear is, he thinks it's OK to commit murder by allowing unacceptable, first born sons to be sacrificed, to him, so he can horrify the people. Ezekiel 20:26
What does the reference in Ezekiel have to do with the events in Egypt?
Your beliefs have absolutely, NO credibility and are based on nothing more than what was written by several differing men, who were trying to understand what god meant to them, in their own specific time frame, and own specific culture, from an array of varying perspectives, over thousands and thousands of years.
Conjecture.
Men said and wrote, under the guise of god's supposed voice, to lend credibility, where there was none. Today, Jason, you do the same thing; you use the Bible, with the supposed authority of god, to push varying agendas...
Which agendas am I pushing?
Anon said: For me, there was definitely something to break free from. I felt I had to serve the God from this book, and that everything the book said was true. I needed to realize I didn't have to live my life based on this book and that I didn't have to live in fear of burning in hell for all eternity if I did something its god didn't like.
It’s sad but true - much of mainstream Christianity really pushes the burning in hell bit and as a result, people feel scared into believing. However, Scripture is also quite clear the punishment for the wicked is eternal death, not eternal suffering. Burning in hell is a construct of man, not God.
Stating that the Bible is just Jewish history is oversimplifying.
The Old Testament is the history of the Jews.
It is presented by many to many as the one true word of God that is the only key to avoiding everlasting torture.
Except everlasting torture isn’t a Bible-based doctrine.
But there are numerous times God tells people to kill that would be clearly considered murders under any definition in modern times in the US and much of the world.
I can’t see how this is a valid argument for, or against, the directives of an omnipotent being.
People are commanded to kill gays, fortune tellers, witches, people who worship other gods, people who work on the Sabbath, kids who curse their parents, and so on.
Correct - the OT Israelites were commanded to kill anyone who broke God’s law.
I can look up the verses if you'd like, but there are plenty of cases where God calls on people to kill (your word) or murder (my word).
Agreed.
So why put all this violence in a holy book?
To describe and outline the history of God’s chosen people.
If you truly think that it's just history and that it's just because people back then were violent, why does the "living Bible" still contain it?
I’m not sure what you’re arguing here.
Why doesn't the Pope or someone come out and say this book (or at least its Old Testament) is not divinely inspired, but just the history of a group of people who, like many peoples around the world, went around killing everyone they came across to gain land, power, and wealth.
Because there’s no reason for a Christian to start claiming the OT is not divinely inspired. We leave that kind of thing up to atheists ☺
They either truly thought God wanted them to do this, or they used him as an excuse to do all their killing. But in any case, as people living in the modern, civilized world, we don't think that every firstborn male of a country should be killed because they don't have lamb's blood on their door.
We would think so if God told us to do it again. The problem is you’re pitting the intellect of this world against the intellect of God – I can’t help but side with the latter.
Jason said,
You originally said God says it’s okay for people to commit murder. Now you’re saying God says it’s okay for people to kill murderers. As the two are quite different, which is it?
They are the same. killing is killing. There is no provision in the ten commandments that states thou shalt not kill -- except if you are killing a killer.
In regards to the ten commandments and the rather definitive commandment thou shalt not kill,
Jason ask, What’s not clear?
It's abundantly clear that in the ten commandments, god tells us not to kill, but in Genesis 9:5-6 god tells us to kill -- kill the killer.
Then in 1Sam 15:3-4, God -- the one who gave the commandment, thou shalt not kill -- also says, I am the Lord all powerful, and now I am going to make Amalek pay! Go and attack the Amalekites! Destroy them and their possessions. Don't have any pity. Kill their men, women, children and even their babies.
Not clear. should we kill or should we not kill? Can't god make up his mind? Oh, and BTW, god, says, thou shalt not kill, but that is exactly what he does throughout the Bible.
God, the mother of all hypocrites. Don't kill, kill, don't kill, kill, don't kill, kill, kill, kill. Make up your mind you schizophrenic, Deity!
Jason asks, What does the reference in Ezekiel have to do with the events in Egypt?
Just showing that god thinks it is perfectly acceptable (it's OK) to to commit murder by allowing unacceptable, first born sons to be sacrificed, to him, so he can horrify the people. If god didn't think it was OK, then he would have put a stop to it, but he thinks it is perfectly acceptable, so he let's people commit murder. Just like god finds it perfectly OK, to kill off the innocent first born of Egypt and any first born who didn't get the message to put a protective coating of blood around their door, so he could horrify Pharaoh into submission. What a demented and confused Deity.
I said, Your beliefs have absolutely, NO credibility and are based on nothing more than what was written by several differing men, who were trying to understand what god meant to them, in their own specific time frame, and own specific culture, from an array of varying perspectives, over thousands and thousands of years. Men said and wrote, under the guise of god's supposed voice, to lend credibility, where there was none. Today, Jason, you do the same thing; you use the Bible, with the supposed authority of god, to push varying agendas -- some polluted, or perverted or some seriously dangerous, with absolutely no credibility, except for the deluded viability in your own mind, based, not in reason, but in the lack of reason, what you call faith. You've got nothing.
Jason cleverly answered, "Conjecture."
Yeah, go with that, Jason. Keep the light out by plastering the pages of the Bible on all your windows and hide under your flimsy bunker of bibles. Unless, of course, by saying "conjecture", you are in agreement with me, that all your beliefs are based on nothing but inconclusive, unverifiable, incomplete, information that can be interpreted in a myriad of ways -- complete and utter conjecture, being held up by delusion and the tissue thin veil of faith.
Jason asks, Which agendas am I pushing?
You should know; you're the one with a website, pushing it.
--S.
Jason said that all the violence in the bible is “To describe and outline the history of God’s chosen people.” Stop and think a moment about the phrase “God’s chosen people”. It’s the epitome of oxymoron. The idea that a perfect loving god would create all people in his image, and then chose any one over the other is immoral, racist, and repugnant to any decent human being.
Folks, Jason is a Christadelphian that has lost touch with his own humanity, and the bible is his justification and motivation. Concepts that nauseate most of us cause him no concern, as he worships an intolerant vengeful god that savors the aroma of burning flesh and kills his own creation with ease, including the slaughter of innocent children. Most Christians can claim ignorance, as I did, and as many have testified here and in other blogs, were not aware of the atrocities committed by the very god they worship. It is websites such as Steve’s that are shedding light on a truly horrific biblical god, and the numbers of its worshippers is steadily declining.
Many Christians, however, such as Jason, will never see these illuminations as anything but an attack on their “perfect” belief. The result is that they will dig their heels in even deeper, and their faith will become stronger. I have seen this effect directly in my own family, and siblings that were once functional human beings have become Christian zealots that are a source of bewilderment and amusement to those outside their narrow world view.
Ranting aside, I did want to make one point, undoubtedly to no avail, to Jason. Typical of Christians, you incorrectly equate non-Christians to atheists, as revealed by this statement: ”Because there’s no reason for a Christian to start claiming the OT is not divinely inspired. We leave that kind of thing up to atheists.” No, Jason, we also leave that up to people that love God but disavow the hideous tyrant that claims to be God in the bible.
Sconnor said: They are the same. killing is killing. There is no provision in the ten commandments that states thou shalt not kill -- except if you are killing a killer.
Biblically speaking, they’re not the same at all since killing murderers and murdering people are treated differently under the old law.
It's abundantly clear that in the ten commandments, god tells us not to kill, but in Genesis 9:5-6 god tells us to kill -- kill the killer.
Correct. This is picked up again in the law of Moses: Num 35:31 “Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death…”
Then in 1Sam 15:3-4, God -- the one who gave the commandment, thou shalt not kill -- also says, I am the Lord all powerful, and now I am going to make Amalek pay! Go and attack the Amalekites! Destroy them and their possessions. Don't have any pity. Kill their men, women, children and even their babies. Not clear. should we kill or should we not kill?
Depends on whether or not you’re an Old Testament Israelite. Are you?
Just showing that god thinks it is perfectly acceptable (it's OK) to to commit murder by allowing unacceptable, first born sons to be sacrificed, to him, so he can horrify the people.
Completely incorrect. The verse you’re referring to doesn’t say anything about firstborn sons being offered to him. Compare with Eze 16:20-21, Lev 18:21, 2Ki 17:17, 2Ki 21:6, 2Ch 28:3, 2Ch 33:6 and Jer 32:35. Offering children as sacrifices was completely unacceptable in the sight of God and the only times these actions occurred was when the Israelites were worshipping idols.
If god didn't think it was OK, then he would have put a stop to it, but he thinks it is perfectly acceptable, so he let's people commit murder.
Argument from ignorance.
Just like god finds it perfectly OK, to kill off the innocent first born of Egypt and any first born who didn't get the message to put a protective coating of blood around their door, so he could horrify Pharaoh into submission. What a demented and confused Deity.
More conjecture.
Yeah, go with that, Jason. Keep the light out by plastering the pages of the Bible on all your windows and hide under your flimsy bunker of bibles. Unless, of course, by saying "conjecture", you are in agreement with me, that all your beliefs are based on nothing but inconclusive, unverifiable, incomplete, information that can be interpreted in a myriad of ways -- complete and utter conjecture, being held up by delusion and the tissue thin veil of faith.
If you’ve got something intelligent to add to the topic, I’d be more then happy to address it. Emotive language and red herrings aren't reasonable grounds to reject the Bible or God.
You should know; you're the one with a website, pushing it.
Where have I “pushed” a website?
Dave, if you’re going to attack my character, please do so elsewhere. Your comment is unnecessary and in poor taste.
Jason, I confess. I am irritable due to back pain… hopefully an epidural shot this Thursday will return me to my formal jovial self. In the meantime, I apologize for the tone of my post. I am not quite sure what I said that was a personal attack on your character, but I will take your word on it. I do not believe that a person is defined by their religious beliefs, so please don’t take attacks on your religion as an attack on you. Hey, I am the same person I was 6 years ago, but I no longer worship the biblical god. Anyway, care to comment on my post-rant last paragraph?
Dave,
Sorry but I don't know what exactly you want me to address in your last paragraph. If atheists are leaving it up to God-loving people to disavow the Biblical God, that's fine.
Jason: It’s sad but true - much of mainstream Christianity really pushes the burning in hell bit and as a result, people feel scared into believing. However, Scripture is also quite clear the punishment for the wicked is eternal death, not eternal suffering. Burning in hell is a construct of man, not God.
What about the story of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16:20? Jesus says of the rich man, "in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off [...]
"Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. [...]
"I pray thee [...], father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment."
This sounds like hell being described as a flaming place of torment. You will maybe say it's just a parable Jesus was telling; but in either case it's not a construct of man, it's a construct of Jesus.
Jason: The problem is you’re pitting the intellect of this world against the intellect of God – I can’t help but side with the latter.
On what basis do you side with the latter? What in the Bible shows you that God's intellect is better than man's?
One example against God's supposed superior intellect: The Biblical God doesn't say one word against slavery (he condones it in a number of passages), but most humans nowadays understand that this is a horrid, primitive practice. If God's intellect were superior, wouldn't he have realized this long before we did?
Jason,
Then in 1Sam 15:3-4, God -- the one who gave the commandment, thou shalt not kill -- also says, I am the Lord all powerful, and now I am going to make Amalek pay! Go and attack the Amalekites! Destroy them and their possessions. Don't have any pity. Kill their men, women, children and even their babies. Not clear. should we kill or should we not kill?
Jason said, Depends on whether or not you’re an Old Testament Israelite. Are you?
What does that have to do with it? In the OT, god gives the commandment, thou shalt not kill but then, still, in the OT, he tells people to kill. Should we kill or shouldn't we? God can't make up his schizophrenic mind. The Bible is confusing and can't make up it's mind if killing is forbidden or not. Again, Jason you've got nothing, except a deluded mind.
Just showing that god thinks it is perfectly acceptable (it's OK) to to commit murder by allowing unacceptable, first born sons to be sacrificed, to him, so he can horrify the people.
Jason said, Completely incorrect. The verse you’re referring to doesn’t say anything about firstborn sons being offered to him.
No you are completely incorrect, maybe you Bible doesn't say it, but these Bibles do: Ezekiel 20;26
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ez%2020:26;&version=31;
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ez%2020:26;&version=49;
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ez%2020:26;&version=46;
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ez%2020:26;&version=50;
God must not have breathed inspiration in those Bibles huh, Jason?
Once again you've got nothing.
If god didn't think it was OK, then he would have put a stop to it, but he thinks it is perfectly acceptable, so he let's people commit murder.
Jason, arguing from ignorance said, Argument from ignorance.
In your case, definitely.
Just like god finds it perfectly OK, to kill off the innocent first born of Egypt and any first born who didn't get the message to put a protective coating of blood around their door, so he could horrify Pharaoh into submission. What a demented and confused Deity.
Jason said, More conjecture.
If god did not think it was OK, then how could he have done it. He had to think it was permissible, otherwise he would have thought it wrong and he wouldn't have done it. Did god do it because he thought it wasn't OK?
Yeah, go with that, Jason. Keep the light out by plastering the pages of the Bible on all your windows and hide under your flimsy bunker of bibles. Unless, of course, by saying "conjecture", you are in agreement with me, that all your beliefs are based on nothing but inconclusive, unverifiable, incomplete, information that can be interpreted in a myriad of ways -- complete and utter conjecture, being held up by delusion and the tissue thin veil of faith.
Jason said,If you’ve got something intelligent to add to the topic, I’d be more then happy to address it. Emotive language and red herrings aren't reasonable grounds to reject the Bible or God.
It was a wholly intelligent observation that your beliefs have absolutely, NO credibility and are based on nothing more than what was written by several differing men, who were trying to understand what god meant to them, in their own specific time frame, and own specific culture, from an array of varying perspectives, over thousands and thousands of years. Men said and wrote, under the guise of god's supposed voice, to lend credibility, where there was none. Today, Jason, you do the same thing; you use the Bible, with the supposed authority of god, to push varying agendas -- some polluted, or perverted or some seriously dangerous, with absolutely no credibility, except for the deluded viability in your own mind, based, not in reason, but in the lack of reason, what you call faith. You've got nothing.
All you could come up with was "conjecture", I don't see any intelligence in that answer. All you have is faith, that the Bible is the word of god. Faith and reason are mutually exclusive. You either believe in something because of evidence (reason) or you believe in it because of a lack of evidence (faith). If you can add anything of intelligence and reason to why you believe the Bible is authoritative, then do so -- "conjecture", is a lame and pathetic response.
And because you like statements that have intelligence in them, I'll leave this quote for you again, because I'm sure it was difficult for you to digest.
"Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the spot of every wind. With such persons, gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason and the mind becomes a wreck."
-- Thomas Jefferson
Jason asks sheepishly, Where have I “pushed” a website?
Does christadelphians ring a bell? You know the one in your profile.
--S.
Anon said: What about the story of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16:20?
Like you said, and I agree, it’s a parable. And it is a construct of Jesus, certainly, but it’s still symbolism, no different then the rest of his parables.
On what basis do you side with the latter? What in the Bible shows you that God's intellect is better than man's?
The fact He created the universe. ☺
One example against God's supposed superior intellect: The Biblical God doesn't say one word against slavery (he condones it in a number of passages), but most humans nowadays understand that this is a horrid, primitive practice. If God's intellect were superior, wouldn't he have realized this long before we did?
Good question, although one that I can’t do justice to considering it’s a bit off topic. Briefly though, if you look at the law of Moses regarding slavery, you’ll find that it was designed in such a way that if you wanted to keep your slave/servant, you needed to make sure your slave/servant wanted to stay. A well-treated slave/servant (which the Bible advocates) would have had a very good life.
Food for thought.
Sconnor: What does that have to do with it?
The OT law was given to the Israelites. So I’ll ask again: are you an OT Israelite? Please answer.
No you are completely incorrect, maybe you Bible doesn't say it, but these Bibles do
Let’s take a look at the links you provided:
• New International Version (NIV): “I let them become defiled through their gifts—the sacrifice of every firstborn —that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the LORD.’
• New American Standard Bible (NASB): “and I pronounced them unclean because of their gifts, in that they caused all their firstborn to pass through the fire so that I might make them desolate, in order that they might know that I am the LORD."'
Contemporary English Version (CEV): “and I let them offer me unacceptable sacrifices, including their first-born sons. I did this to horrify them and to let them know that I, the LORD, was punishing them.”
New King James Version (NKJV): “and I pronounced them unclean because of their ritual gifts, in that they caused all their firstborn to pass through the fire, that I might make them desolate and that they might know that I am the LORD.”’
How many of these translations mention that God says it's perfectly acceptable for first born sons to be sacrificed to Him?
Jason said “Briefly though, if you look at the law of Moses regarding slavery, you’ll find that it was designed in such a way that if you wanted to keep your slave/servant, you needed to make sure your slave/servant wanted to stay. A well-treated slave/servant (which the Bible advocates) would have had a very good life.”
Seriously Jason, look at yourself in a mirror and repeat out loud what you wrote. See what your religion has done to you? As a child, did you ever imagine that you would grow up to worship a child-killing tyrant and be defending slavery?
Dave,
Understand that slavery as it existed under the Mosaic law has no modern parallel. The word "slave" isn't even found in the original text. Instead it's translated 'servant', a word that has much gentler connotations.
Biblically speaking, not historically speaking, laws were put in place to ensure servants had rights and were looked after. Consider that the law of Moses restricted anyone from returning a runaway servant - this servant was free to settle wherever he pleased. Anyone who stole someone for the purpose of servitude was to be put to death. Masters were warned not to oppress their servants. Relatives could buy a servant's freedom. And so on.
The circumstances under which a Hebrew might be reduced to servitude were poverty, the commission of theft, and the exercise of paternal authority. I don't see anything inherently evil in these.
The servitude of an Israelite could also be terminated in six ways: By the satisfaction or the remission of all claims against him, by the recurrence of the year of jubilee, by the expiration of six years from the time that his servitude commenced, by injury, by indifference by the master, or by direct commandment from God. How many of these rules existed, or were enforced, during the slaves trades of the 18th and 19th centuries?
I sincerely believe you'd be hard pressed to prove that the lives of these servants, under the old law, resembled, in any way, the lives of the slaves we read about in our history books.
Jason said: Like you said, and I agree, it’s [the story of Lazarus and the rich man is] a parable. And it is a construct of Jesus, certainly, but it’s still symbolism, no different then the rest of his parables
You said hell was a construct of man, and now you agree it's a construct of Jesus. So you were either mistaken earlier, or you are admitting that Jesus was (just) a man and not the son of God. Either way, Jesus either invented or propagated the idea of burning and suffering in Hell.
Jason: if you look at the law of Moses regarding slavery, you’ll find that it was designed in such a way that if you wanted to keep your slave/servant, you needed to make sure your slave/servant wanted to stay. A well-treated slave/servant (which the Bible advocates) would have had a very good life.
I think Dave's reply applies here. Do you realize what you are saying? You are looking at it from the master's perspective. Would you like to be owned by someone and submit to their bidding?
You're looking at things from a master's perspective: if I treat my servant well, then he's better off with me than being on his own. But do you think most people really would choose to be a slave over not being one?
If you didn't have relatives who could buy you from your master, or if your master didn't publicly treat you poorly enough that others would agree that you deserved to be set free, then you were stuck serving your master.
By the way, it apparently didn't matter how good or evil your master was, you were still expected to fear and serve.
"Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward." (1 Peter 2:18) The word "froward" is translated in other version of the Bible as "cruel", "harsh", "unreasonable", etc. So you were to obey, no matter whether or not your master was good or not.
I guess I can understand someone thinking this is okay since the Bible teaches we are to obey God, whether he's good or not (and he can do some pretty horrid things sometimes according to our modern sensibilities).
Jason,
Sconnor: What does that have to do with it?
Jason said,The OT law was given to the Israelites. So I’ll ask again: are you an OT Israelite? Please answer.
When faced with a real argument you resort to an illogical one and answer with a rhetorical. This has nothing to do with nationalities and everything to do with a schizophrenic god who can't make up his mind -- thou shalt not kill or thou shalt kill. Ten commandments or kill the
Amalekite, men, women, children and babies. Thou shalt not kill! Thou shalt kill! But god you said don't kill, now you are telling us to kill? Can't you make up your mind?
You've got nothing.
Jason, changing back to the original argument, says, In reference to Ezekiel 20:26 How many of these translations mention that God says it's perfectly acceptable for first born sons to be sacrificed to Him?
Ohhhh, first it was, they don't say first born, now it's back to the original argument. Let the tap dancing begin. I show you it says first born, so you have to diverge -- what? it does say first born? hey, look over there, ummmm now show me God says it's perfectly acceptable.
Gladly, Ezekiel 20:26 says, and I let them offer me unacceptable sacrifices, including their first-born sons. I did this to horrify them and to let them know that I, the LORD, was punishing them.
Your argument is not won because god does not orate his acceptance. It's written right there in B&W. By god LETTING them offer their first born, as a sacrifice, he demonstrates that it is acceptable. If god did not want to punish them or horrify them, then he would have deemed it unacceptable and he would NOT LET them sacrifice their first born. It is by god's complacency and inaction, to tell them NOT to sacrifice their first born, thereby LETTING them sacrifice the first born, that wholly demonstrates he finds it completely acceptable.
If someone was sacrificing your child and you thought it was completely unacceptable (which any reasonable father would) would you let them continue with the sacrifice or would you do everything in your power to STOP, what you rightly deemed unacceptable and heinous?
Of course you would try and stop it and at the very least you would yell on the top of your lungs to stop it -- because it is wrong and unacceptable. Even though god has complete power to stop something so UNACCEPTABLE, He IS ACCEPTING of it, because he PERMITS it to HAPPEN. And he does so with a grim MOTIVE -- to horrify the people.
God thinks it is perfectly acceptable to accept the sacrifice of the first born children.
You've got nothing.
--S.
Anon: You said hell was a construct of man, and now you agree it's a construct of Jesus... Either way, Jesus either invented or propagated the idea of burning and suffering in Hell.
I said suffering in hell for all eternity was a construct of man. Remember, this parable was given to the scribes and Pharisees. Being Jews, they had no concept of hell as a place of fire and torment. Instead hell in Judaism was compared to an intense feeling of shame. People were ashamed of their misdeeds and this constituted suffering.
The difficulty is, if Jesus did, in fact, invent or propagate the idea of burning and suffering in hell, he must have also invented or propagated the idea of Abraham’s Bosom as the place of reward. However, this doesn't follow with any of his teachings on the reward to be given to the righteous. And again, if your theory holds true, Jesus was also advancing the notion that rich people would be cast in hell (whether or not they sinned) and homeless people would go to Abraham's Bosom (whether or not they sinned). Neither of these concepts follow his teachings on judgment.
I think Dave's reply applies here. Do you realize what you are saying? You are looking at it from the master's perspective. Would you like to be owned by someone and submit to their bidding?
People submit to their master’s bidding every day, whether it’s in the workplace or getting pulled over by a cop. As for being ‘owned’ by someone, what’s inherently wrong with this? As long as I have rights that protect me from being oppressed, of which I’ve outlined already, the system works.
You're looking at things from a master's perspective: if I treat my servant well, then he's better off with me than being on his own. But do you think most people really would choose to be a slave over not being one?
Absolutely. Anyone who enters the workforce today becomes a ‘servant’ to their ‘master’ - we do this voluntarily. We have rights, we get paid, we're not bound to serve their ‘master’ for the rest of their lives, and if the going gets tough, we can quit. Servants in the OT had the same benefits.
If you didn't have relatives who could buy you from your master, or if your master didn't publicly treat you poorly enough that others would agree that you deserved to be set free, then you were stuck serving your master.
Untrue. Please read my posts. There were many others ways a servant could leave other then the two you list.
"Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward." (1 Peter 2:18) The word "froward" is translated in other version of the Bible as "cruel", "harsh", "unreasonable", etc. So you were to obey, no matter whether or not your master was good or not.
That’s right. This is in keeping with the example of Christ obeying the laws that subjected him to death.
Sconnor: When faced with a real argument you resort to an illogical one and answer with a rhetorical. This has nothing to do with nationalities and everything to do with a schizophrenic god who can't make up his mind...
It has everything to do with the Old Testament. Answer the question: are you an OT Israelite?
Ohhhh, first it was, they don't say first born, now it's back to the original argument. Let the tap dancing begin. I show you it says first born, so you have to diverge -- what? it does say first born? hey, look over there, ummmm now show me God says it's perfectly acceptable.
I haven't argued the reference you provided didn’t say “first born”. Go back and read the posts. I said “The verse you’re referring to doesn’t say anything about firstborn sons being offered to Him.” Then I asked "How many of these translations mention that God says it's perfectly acceptable for first born sons to be sacrificed to Him?".
Your argument is not won because god does not orate his acceptance. It's written right there in B&W. By god LETTING them offer their first born, as a sacrifice, he demonstrates that it is acceptable.
It’s not acceptable. It’s a “punishment”. Likewise, God let the Israelites worship idols but you’ll be hard pressed to prove this was ‘acceptable’.
If god did not want to punish them or horrify them, then he would have deemed it unacceptable and he would NOT LET them sacrifice their first born.
Please read my posts more carefully – God did deem this kind of behaviour unacceptable (Deut 18:10, et al).
It is by god's complacency and inaction, to tell them NOT to sacrifice their first born, thereby LETTING them sacrifice the first born, that wholly demonstrates he finds it completely acceptable.
Flawed logic. God lets man take responsibility for his own actions. This precedent was laid out in Genesis and it runs all the way through to Revelation.
If someone was sacrificing your child and you thought it was completely unacceptable (which any reasonable father would) would you let them continue with the sacrifice or would you do everything in your power to STOP, what you rightly deemed unacceptable and heinous?
This is a false analogy since the Israelites weren’t sacrificing God’s son. The Jews did though, in the NT, and thank God He didn’t follow your logic and prevent the sacrifice.
God thinks it is perfectly acceptable to accept the sacrifice of the first born children.
Incorrect. You have yet to show that the sacrifice of the firstborn children were made to Him.
Jason,
Jason said, It has everything to do with the Old Testament.
That's right. In the OT, god says, thou shalt not kill and he also says kill kill kill. He contradicts himself. He is completely fucked in the head. And you condone his barbaric actions of telling his followers to kill women, children, and babies -- you are just as fucked up as he is.
Jason asking an asinine rhetorical, demands, Answer the question: are you an OT Israelite?
Make your feeble point already. You know, if it is a valid point, that reconciles a god who says thou shalt not kill, out of one side of his mouth, then says, kill ALL the men women, children and babies, out of the other side of his mouth.
Diverge, diverge, diverge, rhetorical, rhetorical, rhetorical.
Jason said, I haven't argued the reference you provided didn’t say “first born”.
Good, then we are in agreement, the verse is about the first born being sacrificed.
Jason then tries to make another, sorry, invalid, point by painfully saying, “The verse you’re referring to doesn’t say anything about firstborn sons being offered to Him.”
That has nothing to do with it. It doesn't matter if they were offering to him or other gods. God let them do it and by LETTING them do it, with the detestable, MOTIVE to horrify them, he is clearly, in acceptance of this most heinous of practices.
Jason weakly argues, It’s not acceptable. It’s a “punishment”.
First, it is an unacceptable punishment, by any moral standard.
Second,you are completely wrong, anyway. This verse does not say it was a "punishment". The only thing it says is "desolate" -- to be appalling, to stupify or to horrify. Nor does the verse make clear, if they were offering the first born sacrifices to god or to other gods -- nor does it matter.
http://bible.crosswalk.com/InterlinearBible/bible.cgi?word=Ezekiel+20%3A26§ion=1&version=nas&new=1&oq=&NavBook=ge&NavGo=&NavCurrentChapter=
By trying to argue or condone god's actions by saying it's a "punishment", is morally disgusting and insidiously reprehensible. You're saying it's OK, that the first born children are being sacrificed, because it's a punishment. You are more demented and delusional then I thought.
Any god that would let children suffer or cause children to suffer as a punishment or for any reason, is a gruesome, sadistic, demented fuck.
God says,
Obey me and worship me or I will punish you in cruel, sadistic, sick and unimaginable ways.
Obey me and worship me or I will horrify you by letting you sacrifice your first born.
Obey me and worship me or I will kill all your first born.
Obey me and worship me or I will drown you.
Obey me and worship me or I will cause you to have hideous diseases.
Obey me and worship me or I will cause pestilence.
Obey me and worship me or I will cause famine.
Obey me and worship me or I will send an army and commit genocide.
Obey me and worship me or I will cause animals to viciously attack and kill you.
Obey me and worship me or I will create a fire-storm and wipe and kill off an entire city.
Obey me and worship me or I will torture you, in the flames, of hell, for an eternity.
I will use FEAR, INTIMIDATION, TORTURE, DESTRUCTION, SUFFERING and KILLING so you will obey me and worship me!
This is not a holy, loving, and righteous god; this is a sadistic, sick, brutal, psycho-fuck -- not worthy of compliance or devotion.
The only thing this vile dictator-god is worthy of, is infinite disgust and utter contempt.
Jason said, Please read my posts more carefully – God did deem this kind of behavior unacceptable (Deut 18:10, et al).
Right, so he contradicts his proclamation of it being unacceptable by LETTING it happen. And yet he loved the world so much that he sent his only son to be sacrificed. If sacrificing is so unacceptable, why have a system in place for salvation that includes human sacrifice?
Jason said, Flawed logic. God lets man take responsibility for his own actions.
If that were true, then god would always keep a hand's off approach, but sadly he can't keep his grubby, little, mitts to himself, so he punishes, causes suffering, kills and orders people to do his dirty work -- hardly letting man take responsibility for their own actions.
This is a false analogy since the Israelites weren’t sacrificing God’s son. The Jews did though, in the NT, and thank God He didn’t follow your logic and prevent the sacrifice.
Right -- the ultimate of acceptance. Another glaring contradiction. god decreed human sacrifice wicked and unacceptable, yet he brought to the earth, his only son, for the ultimate purpose of being sacrificed. If god decreed human sacrifice unacceptable, why is it part of the system for salvation? If god truly, did think human sacrifice was unacceptable, he would not have made it part of the system, to save humanity.
Once again, you got nothing, except arguing it's a false analogy because it was not his son, out of one side of your mouth, making the point that, because it was not his son, there should be no credence to the argument, but then out of the other side of your mouth, you -- for all intents and purposes -- affirm my analogy by bringing up god's son, being sacrificed -- nothing like painting your self into a corner.
And in the analogy, any normal, humane, responsible person, whether it be his son or not would think it was wholly, detestable and would still do everything in their power to stop it. Would you let a child sacrifice happen, if it was another child?
And another argument is, even if the first born were not god's sons, he is still their father and they are his earthly children.
God thinks it is perfectly acceptable, to let the first born children, to be sacrificed.
You say, Incorrect. You have yet to show that the sacrifice of the firstborn children were made to Him.
God thinks it is perfectly acceptable by letting them sacrifice their first born to him or to other gods or in the case of Jesus it is a perfectly acceptable way for salvation. God thinks it is acceptable because he LET'S it happen.
God is a coward and a punk for throwing his own son on the grenade to save the platoon.
Any self-respecting Deity would have saved humanity, by doing it himself.
And any non-sadistic, non-demented Deity would have done it without, excruciating, suffering and sacrificing by being crucified to death.
You got nothing, except for a warped, fairy tale -- a figment of your delusional mind.
Put the cuckoo back in the cuckoo clock.
--S.
sconner said: "God thinks it is perfectly acceptable by letting them sacrifice their first born to him or to other gods or in the case of Jesus it is a perfectly acceptable way for salvation. God thinks it is acceptable because he LET'S it happen."
This reminded me of the Catholic (and others') teaching of sins of commission and sins of omission. If the omnipotent God lets bad things happen and doesn't stop them, isn't this a sin of omission?
This would then add to all the bad things he actively did (sending plagues and such).
Sconnor,
I’ll have to assume you’re unable to answer the question about whether or not you’re an OT Israelite.
Good, then we are in agreement, the verse is about the first born being sacrificed.
I've never argued otherwise. The verses are about firstborn children being sacrificed - they’re not about firstborn children being sacrificed to God.
God let them do it and by LETTING them do it, with the detestable, MOTIVE to horrify them, he is clearly, in acceptance of this most heinous of practices.
God gives people freewill. He then sets out rules and guidelines. Should someone choose to break these laws, God lets it happen because He has told man, repeatedly, he will be held accountable for his own actions. Read the entire chapter of Ezekiel 20 and this becomes abundantly clear.
Second,you are completely wrong, anyway. This verse does not say it was a "punishment". The only thing it says is "desolate" -- to be appalling, to stupify or to horrify.
The entire chapter gives a detailed and vivid account of the Israelites sinning and God’s subsequent punishments. Verse 27 says the Israelites “committed a trespass” against God by sacrificing their children, and God allowed it to happen so that the people would, in hindsight, be horrified at how far they had strayed from God’s commandments. Hence verse 4 "...cause them to know the abominations of their fathers."
Nor does the verse make clear, if they were offering the first born sacrifices to god or to other gods -- nor does it matter.
The verse is crystal clear and it does matter since you’re insistent these sacrifices were being given to God. You said: “…he thinks it's OK to commit murder by allowing unacceptable, first born sons to be sacrificed, to him…” Which is it? Are the sacrifices being given to God to something other then God?
Right, so he contradicts his proclamation of it being unacceptable by LETTING it happen.
Again, this is flawed logic. God says, “Don’t worship idols”. The freedom to worship idols is up to the individual. If they do, God punishes them. Punishment indicates a disagreement about the behaviour of the individual. God says, “Don’t sacrifice your children to idols”. When the Israelites do, they’re punished. This is in line with Deut 18:10 and the half dozen other verses that communicate God’s disgust over this kind of behaviour.
And yet he loved the world so much that he sent his only son to be sacrificed. If sacrificing is so unacceptable, why have a system in place for salvation that includes human sacrifice?
Christ "offered himself", he wasn't sacrificed by the Jews. Read Hebrews 7 & 9.
If that were true, then god would always keep a hand's off approach, but sadly he can't keep his grubby, little, mitts to himself, so he punishes, causes suffering, kills and orders people to do his dirty work -- hardly letting man take responsibility for their own actions.
Untrue. Adam & Eve took responsibility for sinning in the Garden and were punished accordingly. Personal responsibility is found on virtually every page in Scripture, culminating with “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23).
Right -- the ultimate of acceptance. Another glaring contradiction. god decreed human sacrifice wicked and unacceptable, yet he brought to the earth, his only son, for the ultimate purpose of being sacrificed.
Christ "offered himself", he wasn't sacrificed by the Jews. Read Hebrews 7 & 9.
God thinks it is perfectly acceptable, to let the first born children, to be sacrificed.
Incorrect. “For when ye offer your gifts, when ye make your sons to pass through the fire, ye pollute yourselves with all your idols…” (Ezek 20:31)
God thinks it is perfectly acceptable by letting them sacrifice their first born to him or to other gods or in the case of Jesus it is a perfectly acceptable way for salvation. God thinks it is acceptable because he LET'S it happen.
Incorrect. Please read Lev 18:21, 2Ki 17:17, 2Ki 21:6, 2Ch 28:3, 2Ch 33:6 and Jer 32:35 and Eze 16:20-21.
Jason,
You said, I’ll have to assume you’re unable to answer the question about whether or not you’re an OT Israelite.
I'll have to assume... no, wait, I know, you are completely screwy, for asking such an absurd question and then never making your point. If you had a valid point you would have tried to make it already.
1. It does not matter if they were sacrificing the first born to god or other gods, in order to make it acceptable or unacceptable. If god is using the practice to horrify them, then he is accepting of the practice. It is of use to him -- albeit a demented, gruesome use -- letting children suffer, for a morbid motive. If god truly thought it was unacceptable then he would have put a stop to it.
2. Your free will argument does not hold up, because god thought it was truly unacceptable for his people to be enslaved by Pharaoh -- so god intervened.
If god thought first born sacrifices were truly unacceptable -- a practice far worse than slavery -- then, why didn't he intervene?
Because it was an acceptable way for him to intimidate and horrify.
Free will does not exist when someone holds the "proverbial gun", to your head, with the threat of torture, suffering, and death. You are a severely mixed up delusional christian zealot.
3. Your punishment argument has no validity, because nowhere in Ezekiel does it say god let them sacrifice first born to punish them and even if it did say it was because he was punishing them, then that would make god accepting of the practice so he could punish.
4. Show me in the verse where it is "crystal clear", that the sacrifices were not to god.
Show me in the verse where god says he let them offer sacrifices of the first born to "PUNISH" them. Show me a verse in Ezekiel where it says specifically, god was PUNISHING THEM BY LETTING THEM OFFER THEIR FIRST BORN SACRIFICES.
Ez 20:26 and I pronounced them unclean because of their gifts, in that they caused all their firstborn to pass through so that I might make them desolate, in order that they might know that I am the LORD."'
r,j,P-l'K ryib][;h.B ~'tw{n.T;m.B ~'tw{a aeM;j]a'w
r,v]a .W[.dey r,v]a !;[;m.l ~eMiv]a !;[;m.l ~;x'r
h'wh.y yin]a
http://www.biblestudytools.net/InterlinearBible/bible.cgi
5. God sent Jesus to the world, to save humanity, using human sacrifice as a tool for salvation. Why does a god, so unaccepting of human sacrifices, use a human sacrifice, to save the world? God is accepting of human sacrifices. If he was not, he would have used an entirely different system, to save humanity.
6. God deems human sacrifices wicked and unacceptable in many parts of the Bible but god contradicts himself by allowing it to happen in Ez 20:26. And by allowing it to happen, is most assuredly, a form of acceptance. And what does god use to save humanity? That's right ladies and gentlemen -- a sacrifice. God thinks human sacrifices (contradicting many passages in the Bible) are perfectly acceptable to horrify his people and for human salvation.
YOU GOT NOTHING.
BTW your interpretation of the Garden of Eden story is just as delusional and you have to jump through hoops and add layers of interpretation, just so it can, also, fit in your warped world-view. You bang hard on that square peg, but it just won't fit in that round hole.
--S.
Sconnor said: 1. If god truly thought it was unacceptable then he would have put a stop to it.
God doesn’t think sacrificing children is acceptable. In addition to the many references I've provided already, Ezekiel 20 says the Israelite "polluted themselves with their idols". The whole chapter outlines the "abominations of their fathers". Neither phrase is used in conjunction with acceptance.
2. Your free will argument does not hold up, because god thought it was truly unacceptable for his people to be enslaved by Pharaoh -- so god intervened.
I don’t see the relevance of this to the Israelites breaking the commandments of God.
If god thought first born sacrifices were truly unacceptable -- a practice far worse than slavery -- then, why didn't he intervene?
The same reason why He doesn’t intervene when anyone sins – because man has freewill and is held accountable for his actions.
Free will does not exist when someone holds the "proverbial gun", to your head, with the threat of torture, suffering, and death. You are a severely mixed up delusional christian zealot.
God promised blessings if the Israelites followed him. God promised punishment if they didn’t. Sometimes they followed Him, sometimes they didn’t, and the outcome was what God promised in both instances.
3. Your punishment argument has no validity, because nowhere in Ezekiel does it say god let them sacrifice first born to punish them and even if it did say it was because he was punishing them, then that would make god accepting of the practice so he could punish.
God doesn’t think sacrificing children is acceptable. Please read the references I’ve provided.
4. Show me in the verse where it is "crystal clear", that the sacrifices were not to god.
Please read my posts more carefully. “For when ye offer your gifts, when ye make your sons to pass through the fire, ye pollute yourselves with all your idols…” (Ezek 20:31)
Show me in the verse where god says he let them offer sacrifices of the first born to "PUNISH" them. Show me a verse in Ezekiel where it says specifically, god was PUNISHING THEM BY LETTING THEM OFFER THEIR FIRST BORN SACRIFICES.
Verse 26 concludes with “…to the end that they might know that I am the LORD.” God punished the Israelites by allowing them to offer their children to idols, in the same way He punished the Israelites by sending them into captivity. The ultimate outcome in both instances was that the Israelites repented of their sins and called on God once again.
5. God sent Jesus to the world, to save humanity, using human sacrifice as a tool for salvation. Why does a god, so unaccepting of human sacrifices, use a human sacrifice, to save the world? God is accepting of human sacrifices. If he was not, he would have used an entirely different system, to save humanity.
You’re not reading my posts. Jesus offered himself up freely, he wasn’t sacrificed to God by the Jews. Read Hebrews 7 & 9.
6. God deems human sacrifices wicked and unacceptable in many parts of the Bible but god contradicts himself by allowing it to happen in Ezek 20:26.
There’s no contradiction since God never claims He finds the practice acceptable. This is something you’re trying to read into the text. God allows sin to happen but this doesn’t mean He ‘accepts’ sin.
And by allowing it to happen, is most assuredly, a form of acceptance. And what does god use to save humanity? That's right ladies and gentlemen -- a sacrifice. God thinks human sacrifices (contradicting many passages in the Bible) are perfectly acceptable to horrify his people and for human salvation.
Jesus offered himself up freely, he wasn’t sacrificed to God by the Jews. Read Hebrews 7 & 9.
Jason,
5. God sent Jesus to the world, to save humanity, using human sacrifice as a tool for salvation. Why does a god, so unaccepting of human sacrifices, use a human sacrifice, to save the world? God is accepting of human sacrifices. If he was not, he would have used an entirely different system, to save humanity.
Jason, erroneously, thinking I'm not reading his posts said, You’re not reading my posts. Jesus offered himself up freely, he wasn’t sacrificed to God by the Jews. Read Hebrews 7 & 9.
Doesn't matter if Jesus didn't go kicking and screaming and that he offered himself up freely. It is still a human sacrifice, that god is using as a tool for salvation -- god is accepting of human sacrifices, when it suits his needs.
Hebrews 10:8-10 First he said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them" (although the law required them to be made). Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second. And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Jason, what was god's will? Could it be he wanted Jesus to sacrifice himself? Did Jesus submit to god's will? That means Jesus did not have free will and god completely condoned human sacrifice, contradicting, all, your other, insipid, bible verses. NO FREE WILL and human sacrifice is perfectly, ACCEPTABLE for salvation.
Admit it Jason, you got shit.
Jason said, God doesn’t think sacrificing children is acceptable. In addition to the many references I've provided already, Ezekiel 20 says the Israelite "polluted themselves with their idols". The whole chapter outlines the "abominations of their fathers". Neither phrase is used in conjunction with acceptance.
Ahhh, thank you. It is you, that helped me to realize, that god is not angry for them offering first born sacrifices; he is angry, that they are not offering it to him. God finds it, perfectly, acceptable for first born sacrifices, as long as it is to him, and not to the other gods, in the form of idols.
2. Your free will argument does not hold up, because god thought it was truly unacceptable for his people to be enslaved by Pharaoh -- so god intervened.
Jason tries to finagle out of this, by saying, I don’t see the relevance of this to the Israelites breaking the commandments of God.
Of course you don't; you can't, otherwise it brings up seeds of doubt and you can't have that, when you are trying to protect a feeble, asinine, thoroughly fallible, imaginary, human construct -- that fairy tale, in your own mind.
The relevance is either you have free will where god does not intervene or you don't have free will because god does intervene -- you can't have both.
If god thought first born sacrifices were truly unacceptable -- a practice far worse than slavery -- then, why didn't he intervene?
Jason ineptly points out, The same reason why He doesn’t intervene when anyone sins – because man has freewill and is held accountable for his actions.
Except god does intervene: hardening Pharaoh's heart, causing men to become delusional, so they will believe lies, sending she-bears to savagely rip apart boys, because they made fun of a bald guy... God DOES NOT give us a REAL choice in serving him or rejecting him. He puts the "proverbial gun", to our heads and tells us to worship, obey and choose him by intimidation, torture, threats, suffering, destruction, death and eternal damnation, in the pits of hell -- NO CHOICE; NO FREE WILL.
You are a sick, delusional, shit-for-brains, christian asshole, who worships a demented fucked up Deity.
You got NOTHING, but shit -- and most of it is sloshing around in your skull.
--S.
Doesn't matter if Jesus didn't go kicking and screaming and that he offered himself up freely. It is still a human sacrifice, that god is using as a tool for salvation -- god is accepting of human sacrifices, when it suits his needs.
It does matter. Christ didn’t have his parents kill him as a sacrifice to God – he gave himself up freely. I would assume the difference is obvious.
Jason, what was god's will? Could it be he wanted Jesus to sacrifice himself? Did Jesus submit to god's will? That means Jesus did not have free will and god completely condoned human sacrifice, contradicting, all, your other, insipid, bible verses.
You’re forgetting that it’s the act of submission tha's done voluntarily. Christ knew what God wanted him to do – but Jesus still had to make the choice himself to go through with it. This is why Christ went through such turmoil in the Garden of Gethsemane. A little more reading of Scripture on your part would have made this abundantly clear.
Ahhh, thank you. It is you, that helped me to realize, that god is not angry for them offering first born sacrifices; he is angry, that they are not offering it to him. God finds it, perfectly, acceptable for first born sacrifices, as long as it is to him, and not to the other gods, in the form of idols.
Incorrect. If you’d read the references I provided and take a look at the Mosaic law, you’ll see God never wants, or requires, children to be sacrificed to Him. These sorts of sacrifices are an “abomination”.
The relevance is either you have free will where god does not intervene or you don't have free will because god does intervene -- you can't have both.
Er, you most certainly can. If your child is trashing his bedroom and you go and intervene, are you implying your child doesn’t have free will simply because you’ve intervened?
Except god does intervene: hardening Pharaoh's heart, causing men to become delusional, so they will believe lies, sending she-bears to savagely rip apart boys, because they made fun of a bald guy... God DOES NOT give us a REAL choice in serving him or rejecting him.
Incorrect. You have yet to prove that intervening somehow removes choice. The Israelites always had the freedom to choose whether or not to follow God. When they did, He blessed them, as He said He would. When they didn’t, He punished them, as He said He would.
He puts the "proverbial gun", to our heads and tells us to worship, obey and choose him by intimidation, torture, threats, suffering, destruction, death and eternal damnation, in the pits of hell -- NO CHOICE; NO FREE WILL.
This only serves to highlight your lack of understanding of the subject. God goes through great lengths to explain exactly how He will bless those who follow him. He also goes through great lengths to explain exactly how He will punish those who choose not to. It makes no difference to God if you follow Him or not – you end up getting exactly what He said you would get.
God says, follow me and I’ll give you eternal life, don’t follow me and I won’t. It’s not a tough decision to make – yet many, like yourself, seem unable to understand this most simplest of equations.
Jason,
Jason says, It does matter. Christ didn’t have his parents kill him as a sacrifice to God – he gave himself up freely. I would assume the difference is obvious.
It's obvious that he gave himself up as opposed to his parents sacrificing him, but it was a sacrifice, non the less, that god willed -- it's a god sanctioned event. It's god's system to use human sacrifice, for the salvation of humanity. God is accepting of human sacrifices to "save" the world -- it's his system; he's the one who came up with it. God willed Jesus to be sacrificed, god let Jesus be sacrificed, Jesus let Jesus be sacrificed and he was sacrificed -- it is acceptable to god. If it was completely unacceptable, god would not have come up with this system of salvation, he would not have willed it and Jesus would not have gone through with it. It had to be acceptable, or your fucked-up, delusion of being saved, would not have been permissible.
Jason, making a lame analogy, says, in a dumb fashion, Er, you most certainly can. If your child is trashing his bedroom and you go and intervene, are you implying your child doesn’t have free will simply because you’ve intervened?
Yes. If I intervened, then the child does not have free will -- I have stifled his will. I, on the other hand, have the free will to trash my room, if I so desire. A child has a choice to trash his room but if I intervene, I have alleviated that choice for him and now he does not have free will to trash that room. Either you have free will or you don't. Any time one intercedes on ones will, then free will has been truncated -- NO FREE WILL.
Jason succinctly says, Incorrect. You have yet to prove that intervening somehow removes choice.
And Pharaoh was given the choice of having his heart hardened?
He puts the "proverbial gun", to our heads and tells us to worship, obey and choose him by intimidation, torture, threats, suffering, destruction, death and eternal damnation, in the pits of hell -- NO CHOICE; NO FREE WILL.
Jason then enlightens us by saying, This only serves to highlight your lack of understanding of the subject.
Oh, I have an all too well understanding and firm grasp on the subject matter. Actually, this serves to highlight your asinine delusion, that you are one of the lucky few, who has chosen the "right" god and are in the "right" religion, thinking you are doing the "right" things from your own specific brand of Christianity, so that you'll win the big prize in the sky, while all others are damned. Congratulations, Jason, you won the golden ticket to funky-town -- wow, you are soooo fortunate! Do you hear that sound? It's the sound of a cuckoo clock, cuckooing, incessantly, in your ears.
Jason tries to simplify matters by saying, God goes through great lengths to explain exactly how He will bless those who follow him. He also goes through great lengths to explain exactly how He will punish those who choose not to.
It's still not a choice if he uses threats, intimidation, torture, suffering, destruction, death and eternal damnation. God says, obey me worship me, do as I say, or I'll put the "proverbial gun" to your head and pull the trigger and you won't get that shiny paradise -- NO CHOICE, NO FREE WILL.
God says, follow me and I’ll give you eternal life, don’t follow me and I will torture you, intimidate you, cause you unimaginable suffering, I'll lay to ruin your cities, cause infanticide, cause genocide, unparalleled to anything humanity has wrought and if that weren't enough, if you don't follow me, worship me and obey me, upon your death, you will not just cease to exist, I will, now send you to a place, to be tortured, in flames, for an eternity. It’s not a tough decision to make – yet many, like yourself, seem unable to understand this most simplest of equations.
Yeah your right it's not a tough decision -- it's NO decision, at all. NO CHOICE; NO FREE WILL and one hell of an illogical equation, but that's to be expected from a delusional
Christadelphian fuck-job, like yourself. You got NOTHING.
--S.
It's obvious that he gave himself up as opposed to his parents sacrificing him, but it was a sacrifice, non the less, that god willed -- it's a god sanctioned event.
The death of Christ was not a human sacrifice. From looking at the old law it should be apparent that God never wanted human sacrifice - He didn't even want animal sacrifices. I suggest you brush up on the atonement and then have a good, hard look at the OT sacrifice laws.
Yes. If I intervened, then the child does not have free will -- I have stifled his will.
Your intervening only prevents your child from further trashing his room. It does nothing else. Your child can still decide to stick out his tongue, or throw a fit, or pick up a book and toss it out the window. You can even tell him that if he cleans up his room, you’ll give him a cookie. If he doesn’t, he goes to bed early. He chooses. Freely.
I, on the other hand, have the free will to trash my room, if I so desire. A child has a choice to trash his room but if I intervene, I have alleviated that choice for him and now he does not have free will to trash that room.
You haven't alleviated anything and you most certainly haven't alleviated free will. Unless you tie him down or drug him, you can't force him to not trash his room. The purpose of your intervention is to make it crystal clear what would happen if he decides to do it again. But there should be no question the choice will be his to make the moment you step out that room.
Either you have free will or you don't. Any time one intercedes on ones will, then free will has been truncated -- NO FREE WILL.
Free will has already been exercised before the intervention occurred, free will exists during the intervention, and free will will exist after. All you’ve done is attempted to put a stop to an event or behaviour. Nothing more.
And Pharaoh was given the choice of having his heart hardened?
No, he wasn’t. But then Pharaoh is the one example that we’re explicitly told God hardened his heart. Romans 9.
Oh, I have an all too well understanding and firm grasp on the subject matter. Actually, this serves to highlight your asinine delusion, that you are one of the lucky few, who has chosen the "right" god and are in the "right" religion…
Red herring. For the OT Israelites, God clearly outlined the prerequisites for blessings and cursings. He left it up to them to do what they wanted. And they did. The followed Him most of the time and were blessed because of it. Other times, they stopped following Him and were punished. It’s really, really simple. God doesn’t hold a gun to anyone’s head and demands they worship Him. Salvation will be given to the righteous and nothing will be given to the wicked. It is what it is.
It's still not a choice if he uses threats, intimidation, torture, suffering, destruction, death and eternal damnation. God says, obey me worship me, do as I say, or I'll put the "proverbial gun" to your head and pull the trigger and you won't get that shiny paradise -- NO CHOICE, NO FREE WILL.
Of course it’s a choice. The Israelites were faced with this decision many, many times. God promised them blessings and explained, in detail, exactly what they needed to do to receive them. He did the same for cursings. Have a read through the first few chapters of Deuteronomy – it’s all right there.
Yeah your right it's not a tough decision -- it's NO decision, at all. NO CHOICE; NO FREE WILL and one hell of an illogical equation…
Scripture disagrees. The Israelites still turned their backs on God numerous times even after being explicitly told what would happen if they did.
Jason said, The death of Christ was not a human sacrifice.
And what is that saying you are so fond of, oh, yeah, Scripture disagrees.
Hebrews 10:8-10 First he said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them" (although the law required them to be made). Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second. And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
Let's see, we have a body and it's being sacrificed and he's got a name, Jesus.
Was it a dog sacrifice?
Was it a plant sacrifice?
Was it an alien sacrifice?
Was it a goat sacrifice?
Wow, why would a god, who supposedly doesn't like human sacrifices, have a system of salvation, that includes a human sacrifice?
Just because you say, it is not a human sacrifice, doesn't make it true.
I'm not sure if you are completely delusional or a complete idiot -- I'm beginning to suspect, both.
Jason knows how to break the will of a child, by saying, Unless you tie him down or drug him, you can't force him to not trash his room.
...Or, unless, you can do, what your demented, crazy, psycho-fuck, of a god does -- threaten to harm, intimidate, cause diseases, suffering, torture, destruction or death.
You are a complete, asshole, to think, you can not force or control a people with fear, threats, torture, intimidation, thereby abolishing their free will. When you control by these tactics, you have taken away free will, just as your jerk-wad god does.
Seriously Jason, do you flog yourself at night? Because you are horribly ill.
The scrambled brains of Jason concocted and said, Free will has already been exercised before the intervention occurred, free will exists during the intervention, and free will will exist after. All you’ve done is attempted to put a stop to an event or behaviour. Nothing more... But there should be no question the choice will be his to make the moment you step out that room.
That, is if you were, only, a reasonable parent and gave "little Tommy" a time-out or took away his video game privileges, but if the parent was a maniacal, abusive, psycho-fuck, prick, like your god, it would be easy to stomp the free will out of him and make him a blind, obedient, babbling, drooling submissive -- much like yourself.
First, you could threaten the child with death.
If that didn't work, then you could round up his three siblings -- to show who's god... I mean, who's boss -- and right before little Tommy's, horrified eyes, you drown, to death, the first one, in the bathtub, then you inject the second one, with a hideous disease, causing a slow, painful death, and then, the last one, you torture him day after day, with a blowtorch, barely keeping him alive, for the rest of his life, in a pit, out back. You tell little Tommy to obey and if he does not obey and do exactly what is said, then the same wrathful punishments will befall him and he won't be able to go on vacation, to Paradise Island in the Bahamas. NO FREE WILL, ONLY CONTROL BY FEAR AND TORTURE, by a vile sick parent -- JUST LIKE YOUR GOD.
I said, Oh, I have an all too well understanding and firm grasp on the subject matter. Actually, this serves to highlight your asinine delusion, that you are one of the lucky few, who has chosen the "right" god and are in the "right" religion…
You said, Red herring.
God, you're an idiot. Red herring?
I say god holds a gun to our heads, threatening us, to do what he says, or he'll cause suffering or death and you say, he goes through great lengths to explain how he will punish and bless us... God says, follow me and I’ll give you eternal life, don’t follow me and I won’t --which demonstrates your asinine delusion, that you, little Jason Christian, is HOLDER OF THE ONE AND ONLY TRUTH and your specific, kooky, religion and your dumb-fuck, psycho-god is the only way. I wasn't throwing you off course; this wasn't a plot device, this was a direct assessment to the previous comments and is in no way a red herring -- you really, really, shouldn't play with big words, if you don't know how to use them.
YOU GOT NOTHING, except the delusion, that the bible is the word of god and you will be resurrected and immortalized, because you know the one and only truth.
Do you ever get tired of making your index finger, go up and down, really fast, between your lips -- BBbbbbBBBbbbBBBBbbbbbbbbBBBBbb!!!!!
--S.
Sconnor said: Wow, why would a god, who supposedly doesn't like human sacrifices, have a system of salvation, that includes a human sacrifice?
Because it wasn't a human sacrifice. As already stated, Scripture is clear God doesn’t accept or approve of children being sacrificed to him. This is without dispute. We know that Christ’s ‘sacrifice’ was a freewill offering – he offered himself to God.
Hebrews 7:27 “…for this he did once, when he offered up himself.”
Hebrews 9:14 “…offered himself without spot to God,
Hebrews 9:25 “Nor yet that he should offer himself often…”
Titus 2:14 “Who gave himself for us…”
There’s no comparison of the crucifixion of Christ by the Romans to parents killing and burning their children as a sacrifice to idols. Again, I’m going to suggest you brush up on the atonement and then have a good, hard look at the OT sacrifice laws.
Jason knows how to break the will of a child, by saying, Unless you tie him down or drug him, you can't force him to not trash his room.
You’re obviously unable to offer anything by way of an intelligent rebuttal to my analogy of a child trashing his room so I’ll have to assume you agree that intervention doesn’t remove free will.
I say god holds a gun to our heads, threatening us, to do what he says, or he'll cause suffering or death and you say, he goes through great lengths to explain how he will punish and bless us... God says, follow me and I’ll give you eternal life, don’t follow me and I won’t…
I’m not sure what you’re struggling with. God says, choose life or choose death (Deut 30). If we choose death, we get death. If we choose life, we get life. It’s pretty straightforward, people have been voluntarily making this choice for thousands of years.
--which demonstrates your asinine delusion, that you, little Jason Christian, is HOLDER OF THE ONE AND ONLY TRUTH
Where did I say this? Quote me please.
YOU GOT NOTHING, except the delusion, that the bible is the word of god and you will be resurrected and immortalized, because you know the one and only truth.
Where did I say this? Quote me please.
You said it here, on your "Statement of Faith" website:
That the unfaithful will be consigned to shame and "the second death," and the faithful, invested with immortality, and exalted to reign with Jesus as joint heirs of the Kingdom, co-possessors of the earth, and joint administrators of God's authority among men in everything.
Jason,
Jason continues to sound like a broken record, says, Because it wasn't a human sacrifice. As already stated, Scripture is clear God doesn’t accept or approve of children being sacrificed to him. This is without dispute. We know that Christ’s ‘sacrifice’ was a freewill offering – he offered himself to God.
It was a human sacrifice. Jesus was human and he sacrificed himself, because god willed it.
Your "free will" argument ultimately fails because you are saying it is OK , if the human, sacrificed -- himself. That's like saying it was morally acceptable for a virgin to be sacrificed to the volcano gods because she went willingly and sacrificed herself -- not kicking and screaming.
Honestly, Jason don't you ever choke on the bullshit you spew? You keep saying it's not a human sacrifice; how is it not a human sacrifice, when Jesus was human and he sacrificed himself, because god willed it? See this is how it works, I show you Jesus was human and he sacrificed himself; it's your job to show me how he was not human and he did not sacrifice himself -- but you can't. You keep resorting to the same old testament verses saying god does not accept human sacrifices, which is clearly contradicted with god's system of Jesus sacrificing himself (even willingly) to secure the salvation of the sinful.
Just like the ancient Jews sacrificed a goat for a sin offering -- a scapegoat; Jesus sacrificed himself to take on the sins of the world because god willed it. Jesus is nothing more than a idiotic, scapegoat, for humanity.
Jason making dumb ass assumptions, says, You’re obviously unable to offer anything by way of an intelligent rebuttal to my analogy of a child trashing his room so I’ll have to assume you agree that intervention doesn’t remove free will.
And yet I did offer an intelligent and more accurate analogy to your lame analogy as a rebuttal that you could not comment on.
That, is if you were, only, a reasonable parent and gave "little Tommy" a time-out or took away his video game privileges, but if the parent was a maniacal, abusive, psycho-fuck, prick, like your god, it would be easy to stomp the free will out of him and make him a blind, obedient, babbling, drooling submissive -- much like yourself.
First, you could threaten the child with death.
If that didn't work, then you could round up his three siblings -- to show who's god... I mean, who's boss -- and right before little Tommy's, horrified eyes, you drown, to death, the first one, in the bathtub, then you inject the second one, with a hideous disease, causing a slow, painful death, and then, the last one, you torture him day after day, with a blowtorch, barely keeping him alive, for the rest of his life, in a pit, out back. You tell little Tommy to obey and if he does not obey and do exactly what is said, then the same wrathful punishments will befall him and he won't be able to go on vacation, to Paradise Island in the Bahamas. NO FREE WILL, ONLY CONTROL BY FEAR AND TORTURE, by a vile sick parent -- JUST LIKE YOUR GOD.
Jason dazed and confused says, I’m not sure what you’re struggling with. God says, choose life or choose death (Deut 30). If we choose death, we get death. If we choose life, we get life. It’s pretty straightforward, people have been voluntarily making this choice for thousands of years.
It would be straight forward, if it were that simple, but when you add all the vile, sadistic and demented ways god makes us choose him, then suddenly the equation becomes convoluted and atrocious.
I'm not struggling with anything, ass-wipe. Just like I would not worship, obey or choose Hitler as my lord and ruler because he ruled with intimidation, fear, torture, genocide, infanticide, death and destruction, I will not choose a god who does the same.
--which demonstrates your asinine delusion, that you, little Jason Christian, is HOLDER OF THE ONE AND ONLY TRUTH
Jason sheepishly asks, Where did I say this? Quote me please.
Oh, you mean you don't know your specific, deluded, criteria on how to obtain eternal life?
YOU GOT NOTHING, except the delusion, that the bible is the word of god and you will be resurrected and immortalized, because you know the one and only truth.
Jason ignorantly says, Where did I say this? Quote me please.
"THE FOUNDATION
That the book currently known as the Bible, consisting of the Scriptures of Moses, the prophets, and the apostles, is the only source of knowledge concerning God and His purposes at present extant or available in the earth, and that the same were wholly given by inspiration of God in the writers, and are consequently without error in all parts of them."
"That at the close of the thousand years, there will be a general resurrection and judgment, resulting in the final extinction of the wicked, and the immortalization of those who shall have established their title (under the grace of God) to eternal life during the thousand years."
Again, you are a delusional asshole, who doesn't even know his own statement of faith.
You got nothing. You wallow in your own bullshit -- it must stink to high heaven.
--S.
Dave,
I don’t see anything here stating I’m the “HOLDER OF THE ONE AND ONLY TRUTH”, do you...?
Sconnor said: It was a human sacrifice. Jesus was human and he sacrificed himself, because god willed it.
Okay, let’s try something else since obviously it’s not sinking in. Firstly, define ‘human sacrifice’ as forbidden under the old law. Secondly, explain why it was being done. Thirdly, tell me what was being sacrificed and by whom.
See this is how it works, I show you Jesus was human and he sacrificed himself; it's your job to show me how he was not human and he did not sacrifice himself -- but you can't.
See above.
Just like the ancient Jews sacrificed a goat for a sin offering -- a scapegoat; Jesus sacrificed himself to take on the sins of the world because god willed it. Jesus is nothing more than a idiotic, scapegoat, for humanity.
Other then that last bit, you’re bang on. Well done.
That, is if you were, only, a reasonable parent and gave "little Tommy" a time-out or took away his video game privileges, but if the parent was a maniacal, abusive, psycho-fuck, prick, like your god, it would be easy to stomp the free will out of him and make him a blind, obedient, babbling, drooling submissive -- much like yourself.
Tiresome and irrelevant. Did God stomp out the free-will of the Israelites?
It would be straight forward, if it were that simple, but when you add all the vile, sadistic and demented ways god makes us choose him, then suddenly the equation becomes convoluted and atrocious.
Er, it is that simple. It’s unfortunate because your anger issues are getting in the way of comprehending this most basic of equations. God says, “choose life or choose death, I want you to choose life”. Gosh, it’s a tough one isn’t it? I can either live, or I can die. Tough call!
Oh, you mean you don't know your specific, deluded, criteria on how to obtain eternal life?
I’m asking you to show me where I said I am the “holder of the one and only truth”. Can you do that?
Again, you are a delusional asshole, who doesn't even know his own statement of faith.
I’m asking you to show me where I said I “know the one and only truth” . Can you do that?
Jason said: “I don’t see anything here stating I’m the “HOLDER OF THE ONE AND ONLY TRUTH”, do you...?”
No, but sconner never claimed that you said that that word-for-word. He didn’t put it in quotes. Your ramblings, the Christadelphian Statement of Faith, and the bible itself, makes it very clear (well, at least as clear as the bible can get), that worshipping Jesus is the only way to be with God. And you go to excruciating lengths in attempting to prove that your version of worship is the truth. Let’s clear this up: Do you believe that non-Christians will be in Heaven? Do you believe non-Christadelphians will be in Heaven?
Some basic questions for you Jason. What is your purpose here?
I suspect that you have never converted an EX-Christian back to Christianity. Have you? I also suspect that you *have* been successful in converting a Christian or two into becoming Christadelphian. Have you? If someone already believes the Bible is the word of God, you present very good evidence for your particular sect.
The thing is though, is that good folks like sconner and myself have survived life-altering events that have lifted the veil of our religion and exposed Christianity for what it really is. We are EX Christians. There is no going back for us. Ever.
Jason,
Jason said, Okay, let’s try something else since obviously it’s not sinking in. Firstly, define ‘human sacrifice’ as forbidden under the old law. Secondly, explain why it was being done. Thirdly, tell me what was being sacrificed and by whom.
Definition of human sacrifice -- A human that is sacrificed.
Why -- to appease their gods
What and whom -- humans to gods.
This is what you said -- From looking at the old law it should be apparent that God never wanted human sacrifice - He didn't even want animal sacrifices.
So, if god thought human sacrifices were an abomination and as you say, "god never wanted human sacrifices", then how come he conceived a plan for restoration, that included the human sacrifice of his son, as a sin offering?
God finds human sacrifice unacceptable; god finds human sacrifice acceptable -- confusing.
Jesus sacrificed himself because god willed it, just like the virgin who agreed to sacrifice herself to appease her god. Both morally repugnant.
Jason not being able to comment directly to the, more accurate, analogy, diverges and feebly says, Tiresome and irrelevant. Did God stomp out the free-will of the Israelites?
Yes. Anytime they obeyed out of fear, intimidation, threats, torture, death and destruction, their free will was stomped out. Just like if I came to your house, pointed a gun to your head and said, "here are my rules, this is how it's going to work from now on". You must follow my rules or I will intimidate and threaten. If that doesn't work I will cause your relatives to become sick with diseases. If that doesn't work I will torture your children and if that doesn't work I will start to kill the ones you love one by one until you abide by my will, you cock-suck mother fucker -- just like your demented fuck-hole god does.
Jason stupidly says Errrrrrrrrr, Er, it is that simple. It’s unfortunate because your anger issues are getting in the way of comprehending this most basic of equations. God says, “choose life or choose death, I want you to choose life”. Gosh, it’s a tough one isn’t it? I can either live, or I can die. Tough call!
I am perfectly calm and definitely not angry. Just because I use vulgar language does not mean I am angry. If you read my posts that way, then you are projecting your anger on to them --that's your problem. And gosh-g-wilikers, I choose life -- with no strings attached, right? Because it is just as simple as choosing life over death -- right? OK, then -- super simple -- I choose life. You're right it was so fucking simple, I said, I -- CHOOSE -- LIFE, and BAM!, I have eternal life -- glory.
Jason stomps like a two year old and demands, I’m asking you to show me where I said I am the “holder of the one and only truth”. Can you do that?
Oh, good then we are in agreement, everything you say is bullshit and is not the truth.
Your last remaining wheel from your choo-choo just went off the track.
YOU GOT NOTHING.
--S.
Dave said: No, but sconner never claimed that you said that that word-for-word. He didn’t put it in quotes.
Lol Ah, I see.
Your ramblings, the Christadelphian Statement of Faith, and the bible itself, makes it very clear (well, at least as clear as the bible can get), that worshipping Jesus is the only way to be with God.
Sounds like an adequate description of Christianity.
And you go to excruciating lengths in attempting to prove that your version of worship is the truth.
Nope, sorry. You’re reading into things. I’m merely addressing incorrect statements that have been posted here. If someone says the Bible states Adam & Eve ate an apple and I say they didn’t, am I pushing my version of worship?
Let’s clear this up: Do you believe that non-Christians will be in Heaven? Do you believe non-Christadelphians will be in Heaven?
I don’t believe anyone will be in Heaven.
Some basic questions for you Jason. What is your purpose here?
On earth or on this website?
I suspect that you have never converted an EX-Christian back to Christianity. Have you?
No, but then I personally only know one. ☺
The thing is though, is that good folks like sconner and myself have survived life-altering events that have lifted the veil of our religion and exposed Christianity for what it really is. We are EX Christians. There is no going back for us. Ever.
That’s fine. I’m not trying to convert you.
Definition of human sacrifice -- A human that is sacrificed.
How was a human sacrificed?
Why -- to appease their gods
How would sacrificing a human appease their gods?
What and whom -- humans to gods.
I thought it was only first-born children who were being sacrificed…? And who was doing the sacrificing?
So, if god thought human sacrifices were an abomination and as you say, "god never wanted human sacrifices", then how come he conceived a plan for restoration, that included the human sacrifice of his son, as a sin offering?
Answered already. Go back and read my posts.
Jesus sacrificed himself because god willed it, just like the virgin who agreed to sacrifice herself to appease her god. Both morally repugnant.
And what exactly is morally repugnant about a man offering his life in order to save mankind?
Did God stomp out the free-will of the Israelites? - Yes.
So the Israelites were never able to disobey God?
Just like if I came to your house, pointed a gun to your head and said, "here are my rules, this is how it's going to work from now on". You must follow my rules or I will intimidate and threaten.
Lol Right. And if I carried on with my daily chores (doing the laundry, cooking some dinner, going out to the movies, chatting on the phone with my parents) while you had a gun pointed at my head “intimidating and threatening”, have you really "stomped out my free will"?
I am perfectly calm and definitely not angry. Just because I use vulgar language does not mean I am angry.
Then it means your command of the English language is severely limited.
And gosh-g-wilikers, I choose life -- with no strings attached, right? Because it is just as simple as choosing life over death -- right? OK, then -- super simple -- I choose life. You're right it was so fucking simple, I said, I -- CHOOSE -- LIFE, and BAM!, I have eternal life -- glory.
Oops, I think you forgot something… If you want eternal life, you’re going to have “love the Lord your God and to keep his commands, laws, and regulations by walking in his ways. “ (Deut 30:16) It always helps if you read the verses. Still want eternal life?
Oh, good then we are in agreement, everything you say is bullshit and is not the truth.
I’ll take that as a resounding “No, I am unable.” ☺
Jason, let me rephrase some of my questions:
What is your purpose on this website? In other words, why do you take time out of your life to come to this blog and debate Christianity with non-believers? What are you hoping to accomplish?
Do you believe that non-Christians will attain salvation?
Do you believe non-Christadelphians will attain salvation?
And you ignored this one: I also suspect that you *have* been successful in converting a Christian or two into becoming Christadelphian. Have you?
And an add-on bonus question: Are you the “holder of the one and only truth”? If not, whom else holds it?
Dave,
I'm not hoping to accomplish anything other then engage in some interesting Bible discussions to pass the time.
Do you believe that non-Christians will attain salvation?
No.
Do you believe non-Christadelphians will attain salvation?
Yes.
And you ignored this one: I also suspect that you *have* been successful in converting a Christian or two into becoming Christadelphian. Have you?
Only by extension - it's a group effort thing.
And an add-on bonus question: Are you the “holder of the one and only truth”? If not, whom else holds it?
Trick question since the Bible holds the one and only truth.
Jason said, How was a human sacrificed?
Your dumb-shit god -- the god who never wanted human sacrifices -- willed it and the obedient lap dog Jesus obeyed. Jesus a (human) was made flesh for god's plan (a sacrifice) for a restoration.
Jason making dumb points says, How would sacrificing a human appease their gods?
For whatever shit-brained superstition that got into their head; just like the shit-brained superstitious plan you fuck-knob god conceived of.
Jason trying to make a point says, I thought it was only first-born children who were being sacrificed…? And who was doing the sacrificing?
Point?
So, if god thought human sacrifices were an abomination and as you say, "god never wanted human sacrifices", then how come he conceived a plan for restoration, that included the human sacrifice of his son, as a sin offering?
Jason answers, Answered already. Go back and read my posts.
...And I went back and this is what you said,
The Jews did though, (sacrificing god's son) in the NT, and thank God He didn’t follow your logic and prevent the sacrifice.
So you freely admit it was a sacrifice. You even admit the Jews did it, even though you contradict yourself here,
when you said, Jesus offered himself up freely, he wasn’t sacrificed to God by the Jews.
You confuse easily don't you, fuck-head?
Jason asks, And what exactly is morally repugnant about a man offering his life in order to save mankind?
Because it's based on absurd superstitions. I know it's real hard, for your dumb-ass pea-brain, to wrap around this, but Jesus' sacrifice is exactly the same as a virgin sacrificing herself, so the volcano won't erupt, or Jews sacrificing a goat to rid their sin or a satanist sacrificing a baby so the anti-christ will come. None of it's REAL. SACRIFICES DON'T REALLY ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING. And because they are not REAL, people have died for NO REASON. You are living in a fucked-up delusional world of your own making.
Jason asks, So the Israelites were never able to disobey God?
It went in waves -- the peoples free will was broken then generations went by, they did their own thing then god swooped back in and intimidated, threatened, caused suffering, death and destruction and zapped the free will out of them again. God's plan is fucked-up; it never works. Who wants their free will suppressed? The people decided to rise up to the demented, screwed-up, Hitler-god.
Jason giggles like a little schoolgirl and says, Lol Right. And if I carried on with my daily chores (doing the laundry, cooking some dinner, going out to the movies, chatting on the phone with my parents) while you had a gun pointed at my head “intimidating and threatening”, have you really "stomped out my free will"?
It depends on what my rules and laws were. You see, free will, means just that -- you are free to do as you please. Even if one thing is restricted, like me restricting certain dietary wants, then it is not free will -- is it?
Jason make a lame observation and says, Then it means your command of the English language is severely limited.
Absolutely not; to the contrary. By adding profanity to my arsenal of words I can weave an unlimited and vast, matrix of syntax. And I'm still not angry -- dip-shit.
Jason, being the delusional, Juggernaut that he is said, Oops, I think you forgot something… If you want eternal life, you’re going to have “love the Lord your God and to keep his commands, laws, and regulations by walking in his ways. “ (Deut 30:16) It always helps if you read the verses
You mother-fucking, lying sack of shit. You said it was just as simple as choosing life or choosing death. What the fuck, is it, to "walk in his ways"? I bet there is a shit pile of strings attached to this one.
Do I have to believe in every word in the Bible? Do I have to read the Bible everyday? Do I have to repent? Do I have to be baptized? Is it OK that I was baptized as a baby? Man I thought you said this was simple.
Oh, good then we are in agreement, everything you say is bullshit and is not the truth.
Jason not fully being able to commit to his delusions of grandeur, says, I’ll take that as a resounding “No, I am unable."
Oh, but I am able. Either you believe the bullshit you vomit up, as truth or you are just vomiting, complete bullshit, that has zero validity. Evidently, you hold a belief on how to obtain eternal life -- is that belief the one and only truth?
--S.
YOU GOT NOTHING, but the sound of an empty rocking chair.
Jason said, How was a human sacrificed? - Your dumb-shit god -- the god who never wanted human sacrifices -- willed it and the obedient lap dog Jesus obeyed. Jesus a (human) was made flesh for god's plan (a sacrifice) for a restoration.
You’re obviously not understanding the question. In the OLD TESTAMENT, how was a human sacrificed?
Jason trying to make a point says, I thought it was only first-born children who were being sacrificed…? And who was doing the sacrificing? - Point?
Answer the question and I’ll explain it to you.
So you freely admit it was a sacrifice. You even admit the Jews did it, even though you contradict yourself here,
Nope. According to you human sacrifices in the OT consisted of parents killing their child and burning him. Did Jesus’ parents kill him and then burn him? The difference with Christ was he offered up his life and in so doing, the Jews sacrificed him to the Romans. See how that works? No parents, no fire, no altar - thus not a human sacrifice by the Bible's definition.
Jason asks, And what exactly is morally repugnant about a man offering his life in order to save mankind?- Because it's based on absurd superstitions.
Absurd superstitions aren’t morally repugnant. I’ll have to assume you’re not really sure why it’s morally repugnant.
Jason asks, So the Israelites were never able to disobey God? - It went in waves...
According to you though, the Israelites shouldn’t have had freewill since “free will does not exist when someone holds the "proverbial gun", to your head, with the threat of torture, suffering, and death.” Now you’re saying it went in waves…? Time to get your story straight.
It depends on what my rules and laws were. You see, free will, means just that -- you are free to do as you please. Even if one thing is restricted, like me restricting certain dietary wants, then it is not free will -- is it?
Huh? We’re talking about choosing life and death, not what’s on the dinner menu. You said “free will does not exist when someone holds the "proverbial gun", to your head, with the threat of torture, suffering, and death.” This means people AREN’T free to do as they please. Now you say they are. Get it straight.
You mother-fucking, lying sack of shit. You said it was just as simple as choosing life or choosing death. What the fuck, is it, to "walk in his ways"? I bet there is a shit pile of strings attached to this one.
You atheists are so eloquent in your speech. You're a real intelligent bunch. Anyhow, yes, the “choosing” part means you’re “choosing” to walk in his ways. This is too tough for you, apparently. As is reading the verses that talk about what it means to “choose God”.
Do I have to believe in every word in the Bible? Do I have to read the Bible everyday? Do I have to repent? Do I have to be baptized? Is it OK that I was baptized as a baby? Man I thought you said this was simple.
Man, you don’t think all of that is simple?? Ouch.
Jason said, “You atheists are so eloquent in your speech. You're a real intelligent bunch.”
First of all Jason, don’t judge all atheists based on the words that sconner chooses. Besides, based on clarity of thought, he has you beat hands down.
Second, studies have shown repeatedly that the intelligence level of non-believers is consistently higher than believers. Here’s one source: http://hypnosis.home.netcom.com/iq_vs_religiosity.htm
Sorry Dude.
Jason,
Jason playing stupid, dumb-ass, little games, says, You’re obviously not understanding the question. In the OLD TESTAMENT, how was a human sacrificed?
Answer the question and I’ll explain it to you.
Just make your fucking point, already, you little pussy.
So you freely admit it was a sacrifice. You even admit the Jews did it, even though you contradict yourself here,
Jason the dope said, Nope.
No? You didn't say, The Jews did though, (sacrificing god's son) in the NT, and thank God He didn’t follow your logic and prevent the SACRIFICE.
You admit it was a sacrifice and now you try to weasel your way out of it by saying it is not the Bibles definition.
What your diseased, fucked-up, shit for brains, mind can't possibly grasp, is it doesn't matter who is sacrificed, or who is doing the sacrificing, or how they sacrifice the person, or who or what, the person is being sacrificed to or for -- it's all appalling and atrocious, but yet you have to jump through hoops, bend and contort and bang as hard as you can, to fit that square peg into that round hole, so it can fit your warped, fucked-up, world-view.
It is morally repugnant to sacrifice humans, for absurd superstitions, religious laws, and especially, for the ridiculous notion of a supernatural restoration. You are a complete fucking idiot, dumb-ass, for believing in such demented, nonsense. You are exactly like the ignorant, uneducated, superstitious, primitive, ancient cultures who thought because of the virgin being sacrificed they would be SAVED from the volcano. You are only worthy of ridicule and berating and believe me, from the bottom of my heart, I thank you for allowing me to bitch-slap you, time after time, you blithering, delusional jackass.
Man, what the fuck would you do if you couldn't get your answers from your imaginary book of answers?
Sing with me, now:
Fairy tales, can come true, they can happen to you, if your delusional at heart.
Jason, like the dildo that he is, said, Absurd superstitions aren’t morally repugnant. I’ll have to assume you’re not really sure why it’s morally repugnant.
Making more assumptions, kind of like assuming the Bible is the word of god and it is the one and only truth. You sure are good and making assumptions.
Absurd superstitions aren't morally repugnant, dumb ass; it's ones actions, based on those absurd superstitions, that are morally reprehensible. Jehovah Witnesses (which you have a lot in common with) believe in the silly superstition that one should not eat blood. What makes it morally repugnant is they withhold blood transfusions, that can save a persons life. Some jerk-wad parents believe in the silly superstition of prayer, but what makes it disturbing and morally abhorrent, is when they pray over the sick child, who dies, because they did not seek medical help. The insane, preposterous, silly, superstitious, concept of a sacrifice, supernaturally changing the laws of nature, isn't morally repugnant. Stupid, asinine, and fucked-up -- sure, but when humans are sacrificed it automatically catapults itself into the morally insane and repulsive.
Jason, who probably hasn't taken his medication said, According to you though, the Israelites shouldn’t have had freewill since “free will does not exist when someone holds the "proverbial gun", to your head, with the threat of torture, suffering, and death.” Now you’re saying it went in waves…? Time to get your story straight.
Story's straight; it's the one reading it, who is cock-eyed and fucked in the head. Just like if I became lax at holding the gun to your head, allowing you to dine on only pig balls and urine (the holy dietary laws I gave you) and went to the other room to take a little break and you went to the fridge and gorged on the unholy sub sandwich and chips. Then when I came back and saw what you had done, I decided to put you right back in your place, by putting a blow torch to your wife's face. Back to the pig's balls and urine for you. I have you under my control -- control through fear and intimidation. No free will.
Jason, confusedly says, Huh? We’re talking about choosing life and death, not what’s on the dinner menu. You said “free will does not exist when someone holds the "proverbial gun", to your head, with the threat of torture, suffering, and death.” This means people AREN’T free to do as they please. Now you say they are. Get it straight.
Again, it's straight. The one reading it, is confused. If I hold the "proverbial gun" to your head and make you obey the laws I decreed (dietary or otherwise) then you have NO FREE WILL.
If I hold the "proverbial gun" to your head and tell you to choose me, obey me, and worship me and if you don't I'll intimidate, threaten, torture, cause suffering, destruction and death, threatening to take away your imagined, not seen reward, then you, also, DO NOT HAVE FREE WILL.
I know, Jason, it's hard for you to hold two concepts, at the same time, in your delusional, easily confused, meat-head.
You mother-fucking, lying sack of shit. You said it was just as simple as choosing life or choosing death. What the fuck, is it, to "walk in his ways"? I bet there is a shit pile of strings attached to this one.
Jason sarcastically gives me accolades, says,You atheists are so eloquent in your speech. You're a real intelligent bunch.
Thank you.
And you are still a stupid, delusional, mother-fucking, lying piece of shit, who believes in superstitious bullshit, only worthy of mockery and lambasting. You're the imbecilic equivalent to the people who rub Buddhas belly, pray to a wailing wall, perform the five pillars of Islam, perform rain dances, dance with snakes and drink poison, flog themselves, sacrifice animals, cause sexual mutilation, rub rabbits feet, collect four leaf clovers, and on and on and on. You are just as deluded and fucked in the head as these delusional, superstitious, people.
Anyhow, yes, the “choosing” part means you’re “choosing” to walk in his ways. This is too tough for you, apparently. As is reading the verses that talk about what it means to “choose God”.
And what god would that be? Who's shoes must I walk in? Oh your god, that's right. Jason Christian knows the one and only truth, because he thinks the Bible is the one and only truth. It's a good thing your god made you a red-blooded, Canadian, Christian or a Christadelphian -- you really lucked out and weren't born in Iran, Israel, China, or in some other time or civilization.
And choosing your megalomaniac god is definitely not a tough choice, in fact, as I have stated over and over, it's no choice at all.
Jason, thinking in simplistic terms, as usual, says, Man, you don’t think all of that is simple?? Ouch.
What's the matter, is the self-flogging starting to hurt?
The key words are, "ALL OF THAT", as contrasted to you saying, it's just as simple as choosing life or death.
If it is so damned important to make a choice about god and to know all his crucial laws, commandments, messages and it is so very important to know exactly what to do (like all your very specific Christadelphian criteria) to obtain eternal salvation, then why did that dumb ass god, of yours, put, in a book, all that convoluted, information, in the form of songs, poems, parables, symbols, dream imagery, and translated from difficult ancient texts, that could be so easily misinterpreted, perverted or interpreted in so many different ways?
If the Bible, indeed, holds the one and only truth, then why did your asshole god decide to put it into a book that couldn't possibly get to the masses, to deliver his all important messages?
If the Bible is so important and the source for the one and only truth, how come only 30% of the world's population is Christian, while the other 70% of the world's population is another non-biblical, religion or non-religious? And how come out of the 30% Christian population there are thousands and thousands of sects and denominations who all have varying and vast ideas and interpretations about the Bible? Your fuck-wad, dumb-ass god is doing a real, shitty, job getting his all important (evidently, rightly, interpreted by you) message to his earthly children.
And lastly, why did god bestow upon you and your small, insignificant, specific, Christian cult, the one and only CORRECT INTERPRETATION that only you, little Jason Christian and the Christadelphian drones could decipher?
You're a delusional, asshole, who's got nothing but an illusion.
You must have stock in General Mills, because you are cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs!
--S.
Just make your fucking point, already, you little pussy.
lol You're too funny. My point is that firstly, human sacrifices in the OT were only carried out by parents, and secondly, every single victim of human sacrifice was a child. Christ’s parents didn’t kill him and he certainly wasn’t a child.
You admit it was a sacrifice and now you try to weasel your way out of it by saying it is not the Bibles definition.
That’s right. I have no problem admitting it was a sacrifice, what I’m disagreeing is that it was a human sacrifice as defined in the OT which so disgusted God. This whole discussion is in response to your erroneous claim that “he thinks it's OK to commit murder by allowing unacceptable, first born sons to be sacrificed, to him, so he can horrify the people.” I've since shown this to be incorrect.
In Christ's case, he was asked by God to lay down his life. If somebody else took his life from him, it wouldn't ‘count’. Read John 10:15, 17; John 15:13; 1 John 3:16. This is why, among other reasons, this instance of sacrifice isn’t comparable to the events in the OT.
It is morally repugnant to sacrifice humans, for absurd superstitions, religious laws, and especially, for the ridiculous notion of a supernatural restoration.
But it’s not morally repugnant to lay down your life for your friends (John 15:13).
Absurd superstitions aren't morally repugnant, dumb ass; it's ones actions, based on those absurd superstitions, that are morally reprehensible.
Why would the actions of one person, doing something he thought was right, that is laying down his life for his friends, be morally reprehensible when the only one affected is actually himself?
Jehovah Witnesses (which you have a lot in common with) believe in the silly superstition that one should not eat blood. What makes it morally repugnant is they withhold blood transfusions, that can save a persons life.
What does this have to do with Jesus dying?
Some jerk-wad parents believe in the silly superstition of prayer, but what makes it disturbing and morally abhorrent, is when they pray over the sick child, who dies, because they did not seek medical help. The insane, preposterous, silly, superstitious, concept of a sacrifice, supernaturally changing the laws of nature, isn't morally repugnant. Stupid, asinine, and fucked-up -- sure, but when humans are sacrificed it automatically catapults itself into the morally insane and repulsive.
If someone jumped on a grenade to save the lives of their friends, do you find this morally insane and repulsive?
Story's straight; it's the one reading it, who is cock-eyed and fucked in the head. Just like if I became lax at holding the gun to your head, allowing you to dine on only pig balls and urine (the holy dietary laws I gave you) and went to the other room to take a little break and you went to the fridge and gorged on the unholy sub sandwich and chips.
So freewill does exist. Great. Therefore, my original point remains: God promised blessings if the Israelites followed him. God promised punishment if they didn’t. Sometimes they followed Him, sometimes they didn’t, and the outcome was what God promised in both instances. It’s no different for people today.
Then when I came back and saw what you had done, I decided to put you right back in your place, by putting a blow torch to your wife's face. Back to the pig's balls and urine for you. I have you under my control -- control through fear and intimidation. No free will.
And how exactly does this relate to mankind choosing between life and death? I don’t see anyone eating pig balls and urine and I certainly don’t see God blowtorching someone’s partner to force them into making a decision.
Again, it's straight. The one reading it, is confused. If I hold the "proverbial gun" to your head and make you obey the laws I decreed (dietary or otherwise) then you have NO FREE WILL.
God didn’t, and doesn’t, force anyone to obey the laws He decreed. There are dozens and dozens of examples of people who broke God’s laws in the OT.
If I hold the "proverbial gun" to your head and tell you to choose me, obey me, and worship me and if you don't I'll intimidate, threaten, torture, cause suffering, destruction and death, threatening to take away your imagined, not seen reward, then you, also, DO NOT HAVE FREE WILL.
Wrong, as is clearly evident by the number of people in the Bible who chose, quite voluntarily, to disobey God.
And what god would that be? Who's shoes must I walk in? Oh your god, that's right.
The God of the Bible is the topic of conversation. Are you confused about who we're talking about...?
It's a good thing your god made you a red-blooded, Canadian, Christian or a Christadelphian -- you really lucked out and weren't born in Iran, Israel, China, or in some other time or civilization.
No kidding!
The key words are, "ALL OF THAT", as contrasted to you saying, it's just as simple as choosing life or death.
And “choosing God” consists of “all of that”. Do you find this confusing? Perhaps you find baptism and prayer difficult…?
If it is so damned important to make a choice about god and to know all his crucial laws, commandments, messages and it is so very important to know exactly what to do (like all your very specific Christadelphian criteria) to obtain eternal salvation, then why did that dumb ass god, of yours, put, in a book, all that convoluted, information, in the form of songs, poems, parables, symbols, dream imagery, and translated from difficult ancient texts, that could be so easily misinterpreted, perverted or interpreted in so many different ways?
God says Adam and Eve ate a “fruit” in the Garden of Eden. People state they ate an apple. Whose fault is this ‘misinterpretation’: God or man?
If the Bible, indeed, holds the one and only truth, then why did your asshole god decide to put it into a book that couldn't possibly get to the masses, to deliver his all important messages?
Good thing God invented mouths, feet and the internet!! Otherwise the book would never make it to the masses!!
If the Bible is so important and the source for the one and only truth, how come only 30% of the world's population is Christian, while the other 70% of the world's population is another non-biblical, religion or non-religious?
Go ask the 70%.
And how come out of the 30% Christian population there are thousands and thousands of sects and denominations who all have varying and vast ideas and interpretations about the Bible? Your fuck-wad, dumb-ass god is doing a real, shitty, job getting his all important (evidently, rightly, interpreted by you) message to his earthly children.
Oh, God got it right, don’t you worry about that. It’s man who screws thing up – you’re a prime example.
And lastly, why did god bestow upon you and your small, insignificant, specific, Christian cult, the one and only CORRECT INTERPRETATION that only you, little Jason Christian and the Christadelphian drones could decipher?
You’ll be relieved to know there are plenty of non-Christadelphians who have the correct interpretations as well.
Jason,
Jason having inappropriate psychotic, bursts of laughter said, lol You're too funny. My point is that firstly, human sacrifices in the OT were only carried out by parents,
And my point is, you are a dumb-fuck drone, that can't make decisions, on his own, without consulting the reputed Bible, that only has authority in your delusional, slush-skull.
Throughout history, in many civilizations and cultures, human sacrifices (babies, children, and adults) took place; do you find those morally repugnant or only the child part? Or can't you make a decision without using your fairytale, Bible, that has only an illusion of authority, you delusionally, deem viable ?
Jason jumping to conclusions, says, every single victim of human sacrifice was a child. Christ’s parents didn’t kill him and he certainly wasn’t a child.
Are you suggesting that god finds adult human sacrifices acceptable?
Are you suggesting god finds child sacrifice acceptable, if it wasn't done by the parents?
Is it your argument that god only finds child sacrifice perpetrated by parents, the only unacceptable form of sacrifice?
Saying every single victim was a child, would be true, if it said "children" were sacrificed but it isn't that clear. It says first born or sons and daughters. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Jesus a first born son who was sacrificed? He was first born, he was a son and he was sacrificed.
Also pagan priests did some of the sacrificing while the parents thought it was the right thing to do. Just like god did when he came up with his plan for restoration, letting his first born son to be sacrificed.
Jason admits, That’s right. I have no problem admitting it was a sacrifice,
Good. And Jesus was human. You said and I'm quoting, "god never wanted human sacrifices". Then why did god use a human sacrifice as a tool for restoration?
How do you reconcile this verse:
Heb 10:8 After saying above, "SACRIFICES AND OFFERINGS AND WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND FOR SIN YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, NOR HAVE YOU TAKEN PLEASURE
God does not desire ANY sacrifices. Nor does he desire sacrifices for sin. How can this be if he is using sacrifice for sin atonement, through the sacrifice of his son?
How come Jesus sacrificed himself to god if god did not desire sacrifices nor desired sin sacrifices?
Heb 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God,
Jason makes another extraneous argument, This whole discussion is in response to your erroneous claim that “he thinks it's OK to commit murder by allowing unacceptable, first born sons to be sacrificed, to him, so he can horrify the people.” I've since shown this to be incorrect.
Not really. Actually this discussion has morphed a couple of times and now, we are discussing if god finds HUMAN SACRIFICE unacceptable, not just children sacrificed by parents.
Do try and keep up -- I know you are slow.
Jason said, In Christ's case, he was asked by God to lay down his life. If somebody else took his life from him, it wouldn't ‘count’.
Really? Then Jesus committed suicide? Or did the Romans beat him within an inch of his life, crucified him and then shoved a spear in him, causing his death? If the Romans didn't do that then he wouldn't have died, which means somebody took his life. Again painting yourself into corners.
Jason grasping for straws says, This is why, among other reasons, this instance of sacrifice isn’t comparable to the events in the OT.
Yet it is a sacrifice, used by your asshole, god, who had deemed sacrifice to be unacceptable; who deemed sin sacrifices unacceptable. God willed him into sacrifice.
It is morally repugnant to sacrifice humans, for absurd superstitions, religious laws, and especially, for the ridiculous notion of a supernatural restoration.
Jason desperately tries to make yet another lame argument and says, But it’s not morally repugnant to lay down your life for your friends (John 15:13).
It's morally repugnant, when it is for an ignorant superstition, that has no basis in reality, even if it was "for friends". sacrificing a goat to remove sin doesn't really work and comes from primitive, superstitious, thinking. Jesus is the goat. Nothing really happened and you're the ignorant, dumb-ass, who uses his primitive, superstitious thinking, to believe in such insane, nonsense.
Jason jumping through hoops, making futile arguments, says, Why would the actions of one person, doing something he thought was right, that is laying down his life for his friends, be morally reprehensible when the only one affected is actually himself?
Because people throughout history have "laid down their lives" (sacrificed themselves to the volcano gods, for a better harvest, to appease gods, sin offerings) to help "their friends", for completely, absurd, superstitious, reasons and unlike your pussy savior, they were not resurrected, three days later. They lost their lives, forever, for idiotic, wholly irrational beliefs -- morally reprehensible.
Jehovah Witnesses (which you have a lot in common with) believe in the silly superstition that one should not eat blood. What makes it morally repugnant is they withhold blood transfusions, that can save a persons life.
Jason not having any comprehension skills, says, What does this have to do with Jesus dying?
Again, you have a difficult time holding concepts, in your head. This was one example of several, where people are morally reprehensible when their actions are influenced by absurd, irrational, primitive superstitions -- just like people sacrificing themselves for stupid superstitions, not based in reality, losing their lives while accomplishing nothing, exactly like Jesus dying.
Jason trying to make an inaccurate analogy says, If someone jumped on a grenade to save the lives of their friends, do you find this morally insane and repulsive?
No, but then again Jesus didn't jump on a grenade to save people. He was a goat surrogate and was sacrificed to "MAGICALLY" save the world, just like the virgin, who sacrificed herself, to "magically" save the village, from the volcano -- hocus-pocus bullshit -- it's not real. Also, one of the commanding officers didn't ask him or will him to jump on the grenade like your pussy, coward god did, by willing Jesus, to lay down his life. It's morally repulsive and cowardice, to ask or will someone to lay down their life, especially, for irrational, superstitious beliefs.
Jason jumping to asinine conclusions says, So freewill does exist. Great.
Yes in your delusional, fucked-up head. If you are forced to do anything, then you do not have free will. Just because you escaped for the moment you had the illusion of free will and then, BAM, I just threatened you and forced my will on you again, completely negating your free will.
Jason completely confused again says, And how exactly does this relate to mankind choosing between life and death?
Here we go again, you just can't hold two concepts in your, easily, confused, fucked-up head, at the same time.
1. Concept one: If one is controlled by force or threat of force then one does not have free will.
2. Concept two: If one forces someone to choose them by force or threat of force then one does not have free will.
Jason not understanding the hyperbolic, analogy says, I don’t see anyone eating pig balls and urine and I certainly don’t see God blow torching someone’s partner to force them into making a decision.
Yet, god forced people into making decisions all the time with cruel and unusual punishments. You've seen the lists.
Jason making up lies again says, God didn’t, and doesn’t, force anyone to obey the laws He decreed.
Anyone? Does this ring a bell? "Let my people go, OR I'LL..."
And anytime god smites someone, he does so, to instill fear, in them. He forces people to obey through fear. A truly, VILE way to control a people.
Jason definitively says, Wrong, as is clearly evident by the number of people in the Bible who chose, quite voluntarily, to disobey God.
Good for them. Who wants to be CONTROLLED by a fear mongering, baby killer?
But just when you thought they really had free will, god swooped in and caused mass genocide, disease, and destruction, again, to keep them in line -- NO FREE WILL, AGAIN.
I said, And what god would that be? Who's shoes must I walk in? Oh your god, that's right.
Jason trying his hand at being condescending and completely failing, says, The God of the Bible is the topic of conversation. Are you confused about who we're talking about...?
No, but evidently you are confused and can't read. I answered my own question, fuck-head, to make the point, that you're a delusional, arrogant, little fuck, that thinks his fairytale religion is genuine. Read it again dumb-shit. Maybe now it will sink in;
And what god would that be? Who's shoes must I walk in? Oh your god, that's right. Jason Christian knows the one and only truth, because he thinks the Bible is the one and only truth.
It's a good thing your god made you a red-blooded, Canadian, Christian or a Christadelphian -- you really lucked out and weren't born in Iran, Israel, China, or in some other time or civilization.
Jason not being able to understand the ramifications of the comment said, No kidding!
Little Jason Xtianadelphian wallowing in his own delusion that he and his xtian ilk will be restored, living in the land of bliss, for all of eternity, while the other 99.999999999% of the worlds population goes into oblivion.
ALLLLLLL ABOARRRRRRD!!!!!!! HOP ON THE CRAZY TRAIN TO DELUSION-VILLE!
The key words are, "ALL OF THAT", as contrasted to you saying, it's just as simple as choosing life or death.
Jason still making condescending attempts but still failing miserably, says, And “choosing God” consists of “all of that”. Do you find this confusing? Perhaps you find baptism and prayer difficult…?
What's confusing is, you said, it was as simple as choosing life or death, now it's a laundry list of, "ALL OF THATS". And I'm sure there are more strings attached as well, that you still haven't added.
I asked a germane question, If it is so damned important to make a choice about god and to know all his crucial laws, commandments, messages and it is so very important to know exactly what to do (like all your very specific Christadelphian criteria) to obtain eternal salvation, then why did that dumb ass god, of yours, put, in a book, all that convoluted, information, in the form of songs, poems, parables, symbols, dream imagery, and translated from difficult ancient texts, that could be so easily misinterpreted, perverted or interpreted in so many different ways?
Jason being the simpleton that he is said, God says Adam and Eve ate a “fruit” in the Garden of Eden. People state they ate an apple. Whose fault is this ‘misinterpretation’: God or man?
God's, because he should have known better, ass wipe. Being the all-knowing, creator god, you would think he would know how people can err and make multitudes of mistakes. Just because you pick a simple (being the simple minded jack-ass that you are) misinterpretation doesn't mean that there are not thousands of complex interpretations that have been debated for centuries, you fucking asshole. The Bible is still a miss-mash of vague, metaphorical, time and culturally biased, not to be taken literal or to be taken literal (depending how you look at it), easily misinterpreted, ancient texts.
Even your dumb-ass cult has splintered into other sects, with different interpretations. God's shitty plan in it's full glory -- hallelujah.
Asking another germane question I asked, If the Bible, indeed, holds the one and only truth, then why did your asshole god decide to put it into a book that couldn't possibly get to the masses, to deliver his all important messages?
Jason giving a wholly, inadequate answer said, Good thing God invented mouths, feet and the internet!! Otherwise the book would never make it to the masses!!
Yeah so far god's shitty plan of mouths and feet has sucked ass. And with the Internet, more and more people are coming to the same conclusion -- that the Bible is a fucked-up fairytale, that ignorant dumb-asses like yourself base a religion on.
Asking yet, another germane question, If the Bible is so important and the source for the one and only truth, how come only 30% of the world's population is Christian, while the other 70% of the world's population is another non-biblical, religion or non-religious?
Unable to answer, Jason, feebly says, Go ask the 70%.
Of course you don't have an answer -- you are a delusional fuck-head.
And one more germane question, And how come out of the 30% Christian population there are thousands and thousands of sects and denominations who all have varying and vast ideas and interpretations about the Bible? Your fuck-wad, dumb-ass god is doing a real, shitty, job getting his all important (evidently, rightly, interpreted by you) message to his earthly children.
Delusional Jason, knowing what god's got, says, Oh, God got it right, don’t you worry about that. It’s man who screws thing up – you’re a prime example.
How come your shit-for-brains god didn't take that into account, asshole? That's the whole point of the question. And how do you know you're not the one screwing it up?
One more...And lastly, why did god bestow upon you and your small, insignificant, specific, Christian cult, the one and only CORRECT INTERPRETATION that only you, little Jason Adelphian and the Christadelphian drones could decipher?
Jason, being the deluded asshole that he is, "knowing" what god wants and now, after exhaustive, research and amassing vast, amounts of statistics "knows" "plenty" of Non-Adelphians have the correct interpretation says, You’ll be relieved to know there are plenty of non-Christadelphians who have the correct interpretations as well.
Which, by even, conservative estimates, makes you and other non-Christadelphians combined, less then ONE PERCENT of the entire world population. God sure has a fucked up plan for restoration.
Face it Jason, you are an ignorant, mindless, fucked-up drone, asshole, that can't make a decision on his own without credulously, consulting the make-believe, spurious, Bible that is your delusional, diseased, surrogate brain.
Here comes your choo-choo to DELUSION-VILLE.
--S.
And my point is, you are a dumb-fuck drone, that can't make decisions, on his own, without consulting the reputed Bible, that only has authority in your delusional, slush-skull.
Considering your claim that the God of the Bible accepts human sacrifices, I’m not sure why you’d be surprised I’m consulting anything but the Bible. My point remains: human sacrifices in the OT were only carried out by parents, Jesus’ parents didn’t kill him.
Throughout history, in many civilizations and cultures, human sacrifices (babies, children, and adults) took place; do you find those morally repugnant or only the child part? Or can't you make a decision without using your fairytale, Bible, that has only an illusion of authority, you delusionally, deem viable ?
I consider them all to be morally repugnant. Christ’s sacrifice, I don’t. His death and resurrection atoned for the sins of mankind and has since offered billions of people the chance of eternal life. This act of selflessness isn’t morally repugnant.
Are you suggesting that god finds adult human sacrifices acceptable?
Did God ask anyone other then Christ to sacrifice himself to atone for the sins of mankind?
Are you suggesting god finds child sacrifice acceptable, if it wasn't done by the parents? Is it your argument that god only finds child sacrifice perpetrated by parents, the only unacceptable form of sacrifice?
Are there any examples in Scripture of God telling the Israelites He would accept a child killing himself or an actual example of this occurring? Are there any examples of God telling the Israelites He would accept any old sacrifice of human flesh? My point, again, is that I have no problem admitting Christ’s death was a sacrifice, what I’m disagreeing is that it was a human sacrifice as defined in the OT which so disgusted God.
Saying every single victim was a child, would be true, if it said "children" were sacrificed but it isn't that clear. It says first born or sons and daughters. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Jesus a first born son who was sacrificed? He was first born, he was a son and he was sacrificed. Also pagan priests did some of the sacrificing while the parents thought it was the right thing to do. Just like god did when he came up with his plan for restoration, letting his first born son to be sacrificed.
Jesus was the firstborn son, but he wasn’t sacrificed to God by his parents. And even if he was, the only instances of human sacrifices in the OT were done to Molech, not God. And even then, how many of the humans offered up were sinless or sent by God to atone for the sins of mankind? Needless to say, Jesus saw no contradiction in voluntarily dying for His friends - as obvious from these passages that portray His death as voluntary:
• John 10.11: "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.
• John 10.15: just as the Father knows me and I know the Father - and I lay down my life for the sheep.
• John 10.17: The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life -- only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.
This self-giving is linked to the sacrificial ritual explained in Hebrews 7.27 and Hebrews 9:14.
Good. And Jesus was human. You said and I'm quoting, "god never wanted human sacrifices". Then why did god use a human sacrifice as a tool for restoration?
In the OT, it was the shedding of blood of the sacrificial animals that saved. With Christ, it was the shedding of blood from a perfect, sinless sacrifice that saved mankind. God never, and has never, demanded that anyone sacrifice themselves in the same manner because no one was able to duplicate what Christ accomplished – namely leading a sinless life.
The idea that Christ was a human sacrifice falls down logically, in any case. It was God Himself who provided Christ, and we can't say that it was a human sacrifice to God if He provided the sacrifice. You can't make a sacrifice to yourself. This is why the verses above (John 10, et al) make sense – Christ offered himself.
How do you reconcile this verse: Heb 10:8 - God does not desire ANY sacrifices. Nor does he desire sacrifices for sin. How can this be if he is using sacrifice for sin atonement, through the sacrifice of his son? How come Jesus sacrificed himself to god if god did not desire sacrifices nor desired sin sacrifices?
Read the verses: “Previously saying, "Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them" (which are offered according to the law), 9 then He said, "Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God." He takes away the first that He may establish the second. 10 By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”
The sacrifices God didn’t desire or had pleasure in were offered “according to the law”, as the verse clearly explains. With Christ, God took away the old law (the first) in order to establish the new law (the second). This is why Christ was able to atone for the sins of mankind – he offered his body according to the will of God and we have been sanctified through it forever. No more sacrifices are needed.
Not really. Actually this discussion has morphed a couple of times and now, we are discussing if god finds HUMAN SACRIFICE unacceptable, not just children sacrificed by parents.
The only sacrifice God has found acceptable has been the self-sacrifice of a perfect, sinless man, namely the Son of God who was sent to do the will of God. Can anyone else in Scripture make the same claim? If not, then this is why God finds human sacrifice unacceptable.
Really? Then Jesus committed suicide? Or did the Romans beat him within an inch of his life, crucified him and then shoved a spear in him, causing his death? If the Romans didn't do that then he wouldn't have died, which means somebody took his life. Again painting yourself into corners.
What are you arguing? God asked Christ to lay down his life. Prior to his crucifixion, Jesus could have called upon twelve legions of angels to help him (Mat 26:53), he knew exactly who was going to betray him and when and where. After all was said and done though, “No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord.”
Yet it is a sacrifice, used by your asshole, god, who had deemed sacrifice to be unacceptable; who deemed sin sacrifices unacceptable. God willed him into sacrifice.
God didn’t deem sin sacrifices unacceptable. Perhaps you’ve never heard of a “sin offering”…? If not, read Leviticus 4. Yes it was God’s will that Jesus would shed his blood for the remission of sins, but as Christ clearly explains, laying down his life was still done on his “own accord”.
It's morally repugnant, when it is for an ignorant superstition, that has no basis in reality, even if it was "for friends". sacrificing a goat to remove sin doesn't really work and comes from primitive, superstitious, thinking. Jesus is the goat. Nothing really happened and you're the ignorant, dumb-ass, who uses his primitive, superstitious thinking, to believe in such insane, nonsense.
The Bible (the same book you’re using to argue your points) makes it quite clear what sin sacrifices accomplished. As for Jesus, he laid his life down for his friends of his own accord. If it didn’t work, as you claim, then the worst thing that happened is that one person died. If it did work, as the Bible claims, then millions of people have been saved.
Yes in your delusional, fucked-up head. If you are forced to do anything, then you do not have free will. Just because you escaped for the moment you had the illusion of free will and then, BAM, I just threatened you and forced my will on you again, completely negating your free will.
But you still haven’t proven that anyone, other then Pharaoh, was ever forced to do anything. The Israelites certainly weren’t forced to do anything – this can be seen by the number of times they voluntarily chose to ignore God’s commandments. Because they had the ability to choose, they had freewill. It’s a brutally simply argument.
Here we go again, you just can't hold two concepts in your, easily, confused, fucked-up head, at the same time.
1. Concept one: If one is controlled by force or threat of force then one does not have free will.
2. Concept two: If one forces someone to choose them by force or threat of force then one does not have free will.
Great. Therefore, mankind has free will. God explained the blessings and the cursings to the Israelites, and they made their own decision about which to follow. Likewise, God has explained the blessings and cursings to everyone else and we make our own decision about which to follow. It’s pretty straightforward.
Yet, god forced people into making decisions all the time with cruel and unusual punishments. You've seen the lists.
And you’ve read the stories about the Israelites turning their backs on God.
Jason making up lies again says, God didn’t, and doesn’t, force anyone to obey the laws He decreed. - Anyone? Does this ring a bell? "Let my people go, OR I'LL..."
This is God talking to Pharaoh – and we’ve already been through this. Once again, other then the one example we've already talked about, God doesn’t force anyone to obey the laws He decreed. Does this ring a bell? “But if you are unwilling to serve the Lord, then choose today whom you will serve. Would you prefer the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates? Or will it be the gods of the Amorites in whose land you now live? But as for me and my family, we will serve the Lord." (Jos 24:15)
And anytime god smites someone, he does so, to instill fear, in them. He forces people to obey through fear. A truly, VILE way to control a people.
God always explains the consequences of actions before He punishes. If people choose to disobey Him regardless, that’s their fault.
Jason definitively says, Wrong, as is clearly evident by the number of people in the Bible who chose, quite voluntarily, to disobey God. - Good for them. Who wants to be CONTROLLED by a fear mongering, baby killer?
Irrelevant. Read: People chose voluntarily to disobey God. Therefore, freewill exists.
But just when you thought they really had free will, god swooped in and caused mass genocide, disease, and destruction, again, to keep them in line -- NO FREE WILL, AGAIN.
Wrong. The ability to freely choose had already been exercised from the moment they decided to disobey God. Likewise: Because you’re a relatively intelligent human being, you know that murder is punishable by imprisonment. Nonetheless, on one fine Saturday morning, you walk next door and murder your neighbour. You’re arrested, go before a judge and are found guilty. You spend the rest of your life in prison. At what point was your free will removed: before or after the crime had been committed?
Jason,
Jason being confused says, I’m not sure why you’d be surprised I’m consulting anything but the Bible.
I'm not surprised. You are a delusional, mother fucker, who believes in superstitious fairy tales and that can't reason with his own mind, using the bogus authority of the Bible as his own.
Anyone who conducts an argument appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory. — Leonardo da Vinci
In a twisted and asinine bit of logic Jason says, I consider them all to be morally repugnant. Christ’s sacrifice, I don’t. His death and resurrection atoned for the sins of mankind and has since offered billions of people the chance of eternal life.
Yeah, prove it. All you have are ancient words, from a primitive, ancient, culture, that believed in such ignorant, fucked-up nonsense. How exactly does a sacrifice atone for the sins of mankind? Is it symbolic? Was it supernatural? Was your asshole god so unwise that he couldn't think of anything better, then to father a child, for the sole purpose of having his child suffer, by being scourged, beaten, crucified, as nothing more than a goat sin sacrifice? -- That in effect, accomplished nothing, except giving you the delusional, superstitious, notion that you are saved.
Are you suggesting that god finds adult human sacrifices acceptable?
Jason answers, Did God ask anyone other then Christ to sacrifice himself to atone for the sins of mankind?
So does god think adult sacrifices are acceptable?
You have to play tippy-toe don't you, you fucktard.
Are you suggesting god finds child sacrifice acceptable, if it wasn't done by the parents? Is it your argument that god only finds child sacrifice perpetrated by parents, the only unacceptable form of sacrifice?
Jason not being able to think on his own says, Are there any examples in Scripture of God telling the Israelites He would accept a child killing himself or an actual example of this occurring? Are there any examples of God telling the Israelites He would accept any old sacrifice of human flesh? My point, again, is that I have no problem admitting Christ’s death was a sacrifice, what I’m disagreeing is that it was a human sacrifice as defined in the OT which so disgusted God.
No, no, no, Jason you little fuck-drone. Without using the Bible (actually making up your own fucked-up mind, all by your little lonesome) can you answer these? And can you do so, without answering in the form of a question?
1. Does god find child sacrifice acceptable, if it wasn't done by parents?
2. Does god find child sacrifice acceptable, if it was offered to him?
3. Does god find adult sacrifice acceptable?
4. Does god find adult sacrifice, like that of a virgin, who willingly sacrificed herself, for the ignorant, superstitious, belief, that she was appeasing the volcano gods, acceptable?
Jason not being able to argue the point that the bible is not clear if it was children or not said, Jesus was the firstborn son, but he wasn’t sacrificed to God by his parents. And even if he was, the only instances of human sacrifices in the OT were done to Molech, not God.
1. Are you saying that because Jesus wasn't sacrificed by his parents then that is what makes it an acceptable sacrifice?
2. Are you saying christ being sacrificed was acceptable because it wasn't done to Molech?
And I noticed you conveniently did not address this verse. It clearly indicates that christ was offered to god, you dip-shit.
Heb 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God.
And also,
Heb 10:9 then He said, "BEHOLD, I HAVE COME TO DO YOUR WILL." He takes away the first in order to establish the second.
Heb 10:10 By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
John 10:18 No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father.
So let's see, scripturaly speaking god commanded, willed (didn't ask) Jesus to lay down his life to be sacrificed. Jesus gives up his life because god commanded it.
Is it morally repugnant for a father to command his son to be harmed, tortured and then crucified?
And isn't it even more vile that a father did so as a sacrifice to himself, like it says in Heb 9:14?
Jumping through more hoops and painfully twisting logic, Jason says, The idea that Christ was a human sacrifice falls down logically, in any case. It was God Himself who provided Christ, and we can't say that it was a human sacrifice to God if He provided the sacrifice. You can't make a sacrifice to yourself. This is why the verses above (John 10, et al) make sense – Christ offered himself.
And yet god did provide Jesus as a sacrifice that according to Heb 9:14 says he was offered to god. God commanded Jesus to offer himself willingly to god himself.
Jason believing in superstitious fairy tales, says, The sacrifices God didn’t desire or had pleasure in were offered “according to the law”, as the verse clearly explains. With Christ, God took away the old law (the first) in order to establish the new law (the second). This is why Christ was able to atone for the sins of mankind – he offered his body according to the will of God and we have been sanctified through it forever. No more sacrifices are needed.
And you gorge on this fucked-up twisted logic. God who handed down the law of how to give sacrifices that were acceptable to him and took pleasure in, now says, he did not desire them and furthermore he says that they never really worked, in the first place. Why did god show them how to make the proper alters and how to sacrifice animals in the right way, if it never really worked?
Then your asshole god -- who deems human sacrifice unacceptable -- decides to change the old law by commanding his son to lay down his life as a sin sacrifice, that now MAGICALLY brings forth a restoration. Point your fucking index finger toward your temple and make quick circling gestures -- cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo! This is not a wise diety; he is a complete fucking imbecile, that reeks of a painful human construct.
Jason like the myna bird he is says, The only sacrifice God has found acceptable has been the self-sacrifice of a perfect, sinless man, namely the Son of God who was sent to do the will of God. Can anyone else in Scripture make the same claim? If not, then this is why God finds human sacrifice unacceptable.
Thanks for sharing this massive contradiction. God deems human sacrifice an abomination but finds it perfectly acceptable when it's his own son who has to be tortured and crucified -- what an asshole father.
Jason not having a clue says, What are you arguing?
I'm arguing about what you said in this statement:
Jason said, In Christ's case, he was asked by God to lay down his life. If somebody else took his life from him, it wouldn't ‘count’.
So then god took Jesus' life? OK so let's get this straight god brought Jesus into this world for the sole purpose of having him sacrificed -- something god found unacceptable. God commanded that Jesus should lay down his life, be tortured, crucified and killed, to change a rule god made himself? What a fucked-up diety.
Jason thinking he is smart says, God didn’t deem sin sacrifices unacceptable. Perhaps you’ve never heard of a “sin offering”…?
Perhaps you don't remember this verse?
Hebrews 10:8 After saying above, "SACRIFICES AND OFFERINGS AND WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND FOR SIN YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, NOR HAVE YOU TAKEN PLEASURE
Your stupid fuckin' god can't keep it straight, nor can you. God did NOT desire sacrifices and offerings for sin, which as you point out god did desire them. I don't know who is more inept you or your god?
Jason making a painfully delusional argument says, The Bible (the same book you’re using to argue your points) makes it quite clear what sin sacrifices accomplished.
Yeah, in your delusional, diseased brain. And let's get one thing straight you stupid ass, mother fucker, I do not use the Bible as an authoritative source; I'm just countering your lame-ass declarations, which are based on the assumption, that your fairytale book is viable. Only an ignorant, little fuck, like yourself, would think a book written by several different men from a primitive civilization and time, writing about their society in the context of their culture, would be a viable source of knowledge, that you have to painfully squeeze into our time and context.
Jason says, As for Jesus, he laid his life down for his friends of his own accord. If it didn’t work, as you claim, then the worst thing that happened is that one person died. If it did work, as the Bible claims, then millions of people have been saved.
You make the claim that it will have saved millions of people. I say I don't see it. PROVE IT.
And you are wrong, superstitious thought have killed millions. There were thousands of messiahs walking around and laying their lives down during Jesus' time for a myriad of absurd superstitions. You make the extraordinary claim, that Jesus laid down his life, to somehow magically, absolve our sins. The burden of proof is on you and if you can't prove this to be true, then you are nothing but a delusional, zealous, fuck-hole.
Jason making my point for me said, But you still haven’t proven that anyone, other then Pharaoh, was ever forced to do anything.
But you said, God didn’t, and doesn’t, FORCE ANYONE to obey the laws He decreed.
Do you remember, asshole? you said, ANYONE.
Aside from god forcing his will by threat, torture and death, here are some more ways god forced his will on people.
1. hardened Pharaohs heart (you knew this one already even though you said, god did NOT FORCE ANYONE).
2. Jer. 24:7 I will give them a heart to know Me, for I am the LORD; and they will be My people , and I will be their God, for they will return to Me with their whole heart.
3. John 6:44 No one can come to Me unless * the Father who sent Me draws ( metaphor, to draw by inward power, lead, impel him) and I will raise him up on the last day.
4. Ec. 7:14 In the day of prosperity be happy , But in the day of adversity consider-- God has made the one as well as the other So * that man will not discover anything after him.
5. John 12:40 "HE HAS BLINDED THEIR EYES AND HE HARDENED THEIR HEART, SO * THAT THEY WOULD NOT SEE WITH THEIR EYES AND PERCEIVE WITH THEIR HEART, AND BE CONVERTED AND I HEAL
6. De 2:30 But Sihon king of Heshbon was not willing for us to pass through his land; for the LORD your God hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, in order to deliver him into your hand, as today.
7. Jud 7:22 When they blew 300 * trumpets, the LORD set the sword of one against another even throughout the whole army; and the army fled as far as Beth-shittah toward Zererah, as far as the edge of Abel-meholah, by Tabbath
8. 2Th. 2:11 For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false
9. 2 Sam. 12:15 So Nathan went to his house. Then the LORD struck the child that Uriah's widow bore to David, so that he was sick. Baby sure as hell didn't do anything and didn't have a choice in the matter. God forced the baby to become sick and suffer for seven days, only to die. Your god is a sick, vile, cock-sucking motherfucker who is less then the menstrual discharge of a female baboon.
Here we go again, you just can't hold two concepts in your, easily, confused, fucked-up head, at the same time.
1. Concept one: If one is controlled by force or threat of force then one does not have free will.
2. Concept two: If one forces someone to choose them by force or threat of force then one does not have free will.
Jason, being the confused delusional dick-wad that he is, and completely ignoring the two concepts, said, Great. Therefore, mankind has free will.
Basically I said 2+2=4 and you said, Great, then 2+2 therefore equals 32. You are a mental midget, asshole.
Jason hearing bells in his head says, Does this ring a bell? “But if you are unwilling to serve the Lord, then choose today whom you will serve. Would you prefer the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates? Or will it be the gods of the Amorites in whose land you now live? But as for me and my family, we will serve the Lord." (Jos 24:15)
Still hearing the bells? Eph 1:5 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,
Jason makes an inept argument and says, God always explains the consequences of actions before He punishes. If people choose to disobey Him regardless, that’s their fault.
That's complete bullshit. The only consequence god explains to the uneducated, child-like, Adam and Eve is that they would surely die, on the day, they partook of the forbidden fruit. Then subsequently you fuck-god blows a gasket and like an out of control, abusive, father he delivers other fucked-up consequences, like punishing Eve and all womanhood by having them experience excruciating pain during childbirth and adding insult to injury she is made to lust and hate her husband, at the same time. Then god, condemns Adam and all men to struggle and suffer hard work, endlessly, in order to eat, by cursing the ground -- another dick-head move by your dumb-ass god. And not only did your god curse the real smart and truthful, talking snake, he punishes all snakes, forever. What an asshole god. And evidently, at no fault of our own, god not having the foreknowledge, let sin enter the world, to curse everyone. Fuck off Jason, you got nothing.
Jason sticking to his twisted logic, says, Irrelevant. Read: People chose voluntarily to disobey God. Therefore, freewill exists.
David's baby didn't disobey god but god made him suffer, only to die. Therefore free will does not exist.
But just when you thought they really had free will, god swooped in and caused mass genocide, disease, and destruction, again, to keep them in line -- NO FREE WILL, AGAIN.
Jason says, Wrong.
David took a census and god punishes at no fault of their own, his chosen people -- no free will.
Jason says,The ability to freely choose had already been exercised from the moment they decided to disobey God.
How about the ones who were to scared to disobey god? NO FREE WILL.
Jason making another inaccurate and lame analogy says, Likewise: Because you’re a relatively intelligent human being, you know that murder is punishable by imprisonment. Nonetheless, on one fine Saturday morning, you walk next door and murder your neighbour. You’re arrested, go before a judge and are found guilty. You spend the rest of your life in prison. At what point was your free will removed: before or after the crime had been committed?
Right, free will was had before the murder took place, (that's in the real world, something you are not accustomed to) but in your fairytale Bible world, if some fuck-wad all-powerful god hovered over me, telling me he would torture me, if I murdered someone or before even thinking of murdering someone, I saw how god -- the mass murdering, baby killing, megalomaniac -- treated my other friends or people by causing them to suffer through diseases, famine, or death by fire, or any vile, demented way god thinks up to control his people, then god would have effectively used fear to control me. NO FREE WILL
Just because some fought back, doesn't mean, that all fought back, some were broken and because they were so horrified their free will had been permanently quelled.
NO FREE WILL.
Then you conveniently avoided the rest of my arguments and questions.
I said, And what god would that be? Who's shoes must I walk in? Oh your god, that's right.
Jason trying his hand at being condescending and completely failing, says, The God of the Bible is the topic of conversation. Are you confused about who we're talking about...?
No, but evidently you are confused and can't read. I answered my own question, fuck-head, to make the point, that you're a delusional, arrogant, little fuck, that thinks his fairytale religion is genuine. Read it again dumb-shit. Maybe now it will sink in;
And what god would that be? Who's shoes must I walk in? Oh your god, that's right. Jason Christian knows the one and only truth, because he thinks the Bible is the one and only truth.
It's a good thing your god made you a red-blooded, Canadian, Christian or a Christadelphian -- you really lucked out and weren't born in Iran, Israel, China, or in some other time or civilization.
Jason not being able to understand the ramifications of the comment said, No kidding!
Little Jason Xtianadelphian wallowing in his own delusion that he and his xtian ilk will be restored, living in the land of bliss, for all of eternity, while the other 99.999999999% of the worlds population goes into oblivion.
ALLLLLLL ABOARRRRRRD!!!!!!! HOP ON THE CRAZY TRAIN TO DELUSION-VILLE!
The key words are, "ALL OF THAT", as contrasted to you saying, it's just as simple as choosing life or death.
Jason still making condescending attempts but still failing miserably, says, And “choosing God” consists of “all of that”. Do you find this confusing? Perhaps you find baptism and prayer difficult…?
What's confusing is, you said, it was as simple as choosing life or death, now it's a laundry list of, "ALL OF THATS". And I'm sure there are more strings attached as well, that you still haven't added.
I asked a germane question, If it is so damned important to make a choice about god and to know all his crucial laws, commandments, messages and it is so very important to know exactly what to do (like all your very specific Christadelphian criteria) to obtain eternal salvation, then why did that dumb ass god, of yours, put, in a book, all that convoluted, information, in the form of songs, poems, parables, symbols, dream imagery, and translated from difficult ancient texts, that could be so easily misinterpreted, perverted or interpreted in so many different ways?
Jason being the simpleton that he is said, God says Adam and Eve ate a “fruit” in the Garden of Eden. People state they ate an apple. Whose fault is this ‘misinterpretation’: God or man?
God's, because he should have known better, ass wipe. Being the all-knowing, creator god, you would think he would know how people can err and make multitudes of mistakes. Just because you pick a simple (being the simple minded jack-ass that you are) misinterpretation doesn't mean that there are not thousands of complex interpretations that have been debated for centuries, you fucking asshole. The Bible is still a miss-mash of vague, metaphorical, time and culturally biased, not to be taken literal or to be taken literal (depending how you look at it), easily misinterpreted, ancient texts.
Even your dumb-ass cult has splintered into other sects, with different interpretations. God's shitty plan in it's full glory -- hallelujah.
Asking another germane question I asked, If the Bible, indeed, holds the one and only truth, then why did your asshole god decide to put it into a book that couldn't possibly get to the masses, to deliver his all important messages?
Jason giving a wholly, inadequate answer said, Good thing God invented mouths, feet and the internet!! Otherwise the book would never make it to the masses!!
Yeah so far god's shitty plan of mouths and feet has sucked ass. And with the Internet, more and more people are coming to the same conclusion -- that the Bible is a fucked-up fairytale, that ignorant dumb-asses like yourself base a religion on.
Asking yet, another germane question, If the Bible is so important and the source for the one and only truth, how come only 30% of the world's population is Christian, while the other 70% of the world's population is another non-biblical, religion or non-religious?
Unable to answer, Jason, feebly says, Go ask the 70%.
Of course you don't have an answer -- you are a delusional fuck-head.
And one more germane question, And how come out of the 30% Christian population there are thousands and thousands of sects and denominations who all have varying and vast ideas and interpretations about the Bible? Your fuck-wad, dumb-ass god is doing a real, shitty, job getting his all important (evidently, rightly, interpreted by you) message to his earthly children.
Delusional Jason, knowing what god's got, says, Oh, God got it right, don’t you worry about that. It’s man who screws thing up – you’re a prime example.
How come your shit-for-brains god didn't take that into account, asshole? That's the whole point of the question. And how do you know you're not the one screwing it up?
One more...And lastly, why did god bestow upon you and your small, insignificant, specific, Christian cult, the one and only CORRECT INTERPRETATION that only you, little Jason Adelphian and the Christadelphian drones could decipher?
Jason, being the deluded asshole that he is, "knowing" what god wants and now, after exhaustive, research and amassing vast, amounts of statistics "knows" "plenty" of Non-Adelphians have the correct interpretation says, You’ll be relieved to know there are plenty of non-Christadelphians who have the correct interpretations as well.
Which, by even, conservative estimates, makes you and other non-Christadelphians combined, less then ONE PERCENT of the entire world population. God sure has a fucked up plan for restoration.
Face it Jason, you are an ignorant, mindless, fucked-up drone, asshole, that can't make a decision on his own without credulously, consulting the make-believe, spurious, Bible that is your delusional, diseased, surrogate brain.
Here comes your choo-choo to DELUSION-VILLE.
--S.
Yeah, prove it. All you have are ancient words, from a primitive, ancient, culture, that believed in such ignorant, fucked-up nonsense. How exactly does a sacrifice atone for the sins of mankind? Is it symbolic? Was it supernatural? Was your asshole god so unwise that he couldn't think of anything better, then to father a child, for the sole purpose of having his child suffer, by being scourged, beaten, crucified, as nothing more than a goat sin sacrifice?
You’ve read the Bible and you already know the answers. Maybe you want me to hold your hand and help you through it slowly and carefully...?
So does god think adult sacrifices are acceptable?
Other then Christ’s self-sacrifice? No. The sacrifice of anyone else wouldn’t have accomplished anything.
1. Does god find child sacrifice acceptable, if it wasn't done by parents?
No.
2. Does god find child sacrifice acceptable, if it was offered to him?
No.
3. Does god find adult sacrifice acceptable?
Other then Christ’s self-sacrifice? No.
4. Does god find adult sacrifice, like that of a virgin, who willingly sacrificed herself, for the ignorant, superstitious, belief, that she was appeasing the volcano gods, acceptable?
Depends. Was the sinless, perfect virgin sent by God to atone for the sins of mankind? If she wasn’t, no.
1. Are you saying that because Jesus wasn't sacrificed by his parents then that is what makes it an acceptable sacrifice?
No. I’m saying that because Jesus was the Son of God, sent by God to atone for the sins of mankind, who led a perfect, sinless life, it’s an acceptable sacrifice.
2. Are you saying christ being sacrificed was acceptable because it wasn't done to Molech?
No. I’m saying that because Jesus was the Son of God, sent by God to atone for the sins of mankind, who led a perfect, sinless life, it’s an acceptable sacrifice.
And I noticed you conveniently did not address this verse. It clearly indicates that christ was offered to god, you dip-shit. Heb 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God.
It clearly indicates Christ offered himself without spot to God. Does this confuse you?
So let's see, scripturaly speaking god commanded, willed (didn't ask) Jesus to lay down his life to be sacrificed. Jesus gives up his life because god commanded it.
Read Hebrews 10:10 and John 10:18 – do you see that word “offer”…? This means Jesus obeyed God’s will. Try this: “…he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” (Phil. 2:8)
Is it morally repugnant for a father to command his son to be harmed, tortured and then crucified?
God didn’t command His son to be harmed or tortured. Neither was a prerequisite to his death. The fact both happened was a reflection of the hatred the Jews and Romans had for Christ.
And isn't it even more vile that a father did so as a sacrifice to himself, like it says in Heb 9:14?
It doesn’t say God sacrificed Jesus to Himself. It says Christ “offered himself without spot to God.”
And yet god did provide Jesus as a sacrifice that according to Heb 9:14 says he was offered to god. God commanded Jesus to offer himself willingly to god himself.
Jesus “offered himself without spot to God.” It doesn’t say, “God sacrificed His son to Himself”.
God who handed down the law of how to give sacrifices that were acceptable to him and took pleasure in, now says, he did not desire them and furthermore he says that they never really worked, in the first place. Why did god show them how to make the proper alters and how to sacrifice animals in the right way, if it never really worked?
Are you serious? No wonder you’re an unbeliever. You were a desperately confused and ignorant Christian to begin with. Hebrews 10:1 “The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming–not the realities themselves.” The whole point of the old law was to foreshadow a better, perfect law. Now read Hebrews 8 and drill it into your thick skull.
Then your god -- who deems human sacrifice unacceptable -- decides to change the old law by commanding his son to lay down his life as a sin sacrifice, that now MAGICALLY brings forth a restoration.
Thankfully for us, yes. See? You are smarter then you think!
God deems human sacrifice an abomination but finds it perfectly acceptable when it's his own son who has to be tortured and crucified.
God also finds it perfectly acceptable to reward his son with eternal life and to give him the power and authority to rule over mankind.
So then god took Jesus' life?
Are you retarded? Seriously. Have you been reading the verses that say Jesus “laid down his life” or that Jesus “offered himself” to God?
OK so let's get this straight god brought Jesus into this world for the sole purpose of having him sacrificed -- something god found unacceptable. God commanded that Jesus should lay down his life, be tortured, crucified and killed, to change a rule god made himself?
Jesus “offered himself without spot to God” to change a law God ultimately designed only to foreshadow and point forward to His son. Yes.
Perhaps you don't remember this verse? Hebrews 10:8 After saying above, "SACRIFICES AND OFFERINGS AND WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND FOR SIN YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, NOR HAVE YOU TAKEN PLEASURE
Retard, God doesn’t say “sin offerings are unacceptable”. He says He didn’t desire them or take pleasure in them. He still accepted them though – you’ve read the Old Testament, right…? Do you see all those places where God accepted sin offerings...?
I do not use the Bible as an authoritative source;
Good for you and I don’t care. The Bible still makes it quite clear what sin sacrifices accomplished.
You make the claim that it will have saved millions of people. I say I don't see it. PROVE IT.
I don’t need to prove it. I’m simply explaining, using small words, that this is what the Bible says. The Bible says Jesus laid his life down for his friends of his own accord. The Bible says this worked in saving millions of people. You're going to have to deal with it.
You make the extraordinary claim, that Jesus laid down his life, to somehow magically, absolve our sins. The burden of proof is on you and if you can't prove this to be true, then you are nothing but a delusional, zealous, fuck-hole.
I don’t make the claim – the Bible does. Whether or not I can prove it doesn’t make it wrong. This would be an argument from ignorance and you don’t want that, do you…?
But you said, God didn’t, and doesn’t, FORCE ANYONE to obey the laws He decreed. Do you remember, asshole? you said, ANYONE.
I do remember. I also remember saying “But then Pharaoh is the one example that we’re explicitly told God hardened his heart.” Then I remember you saying that God forced people to obey the laws He decreed. You’ve now provided rather irrelevant references proving God forces His will on people. I’m looking for references proving God FORCED PEOPLE TO OBEY THE LAWS HE DECREED. Can you do that?
Jason, being the confused delusional dick-wad that he is, and completely ignoring the two concepts, said, Great. Therefore, mankind has free will.
Mankind has freewill because mankind isn’t controlled by force or threat of force from God. Mankind has free will because God doesn’t force anyone to choose Him.
Still hearing the bells? Eph 1:5 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will,
What does this have to do with Joshua 24:15? Did or did not Joshua ask the Israelites to CHOOSE the god they wanted to follow?
That's complete bullshit. The only consequence god explains to the uneducated, child-like, Adam and Eve is that they would surely die, on the day, they partook of the forbidden fruit.
Really? Read Deuteronomy 28. This is a detailed description of consequences if the Israelites didn’t follow God: Yes or No.
David's baby didn't disobey god but god made him suffer, only to die. Therefore free will does not exist.
Wow. Are you serious? Gosh, a baby can’t walk – MANKIND MUST NOT HAVE FREEWILL!!!! THE AGONY!!! Oh no, a baby can’t formulate sentence – MANKIND MUST NOT HAVE FREEWILL!!!!!! WHAT A HORRIBLE LIFE!!! Lol You’re such a tool. My point remains: People choose voluntarily to disobey God. Therefore, freewill exists.
David took a census and god punishes at no fault of their own, his chosen people -- no free will.
You are retarded. This has nothing to do with freewill or choosing to follow God or not. Get a grip.
How about the ones who were to scared to disobey god? NO FREE WILL.
First of all, you’re admitting that people who weren’t sacred to disobey God have free will. Works for me. Second of all, who in Scripture is recorded as being too scared to obey anyone other then God? Either put up or shut up.
Right, free will was had before the murder took place, but in your fairytale Bible world, if some god hovered over me, telling me he would torture me, if I murdered someone or before even thinking of murdering someone, I saw how god -- the mass murdering, baby killing, megalomaniac -- treated my other friends or people by causing them to suffer through diseases, famine, or death by fire, or any vile, demented way god thinks up to control his people, then god would have effectively used fear to control me. NO FREE WILL
Blah blah blah. Crimes were committed all the time in the OT, even with God hovering over them. Therefore, you’re wrong and they had freewill. Try again.
Then you conveniently avoided the rest of my arguments and questions.
Very perceptive!! And look, I’m ignoring them again!
Jason,
Jason not part of reality, not knowing you can't get answers from the Bible, says, You’ve read the Bible and you already know the answers. Maybe you want me to hold your hand and help you through it slowly and carefully...?
Yeah just as I suspected, You got nothing. You can't prove your delusional fucked-up beliefs. PROVE that, his death and resurrection atoned for the sins of mankind and has since offered billions of people the chance of eternal life.
If you can't prove it, don't answer, anything else just points to you grasping for straws and you are nothing but a diverging asshole.
So does god think adult sacrifices are acceptable?
Jason says, Other then Christ’s self-sacrifice? No. The sacrifice of anyone else wouldn’t have accomplished anything.
And how do you know christ's sacrifice accomplished anything? PROVE IT.
1. Does god find child sacrifice acceptable, if it wasn't done by parents?
2. Does god find child sacrifice acceptable, if it was offered to him?
3. Does god find adult sacrifice acceptable?
Jason answers, No, No, No -- Other then Christ’s self-sacrifice.
God finds human sacrifice morally reprehensible and unacceptable, yet, little Jason Christian doesn't see the twisted logic, in his arguments, that it is acceptable that god uses the sacrifice of his son to supposedly, magically, atone for our sins. Jason, you are a dizzingly fucked up, loon.
4. Does god find adult sacrifice, like that of a virgin, who willingly sacrificed herself, for the ignorant, superstitious, belief, that she was appeasing the volcano gods, acceptable?
Jason gives an inept answer, Depends. Was the sinless, perfect virgin sent by God to atone for the sins of mankind? If she wasn’t, no.
Prove Christ, Was the sinless, perfect virgin sent by God to atone for the sins of mankind?
Jason says, No. I’m saying that because Jesus was the Son of God, sent by God to atone for the sins of mankind, who led a perfect, sinless life, it’s an acceptable sacrifice.
PROVE it, bitch.
Jason says, No. I’m saying that because Jesus was the Son of God, sent by God to atone for the sins of mankind...
PROVE it fuck-wad.
And I noticed you conveniently did not address this verse. It clearly indicates that christ was offered to god, you dip-shit. Heb 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God.
Jason making more inept points says, It clearly indicates Christ offered himself without spot to God. Does this confuse you?
Not at all asshole. You are the one confused. You said, It was God Himself who provided Christ, and we can't say that it was a human sacrifice to God if He provided the sacrifice.
So we know god provided the sacrifice, just like parents provided the sacrifice in the OT and we know the sacrifice was offered to god because of Hebrews 9:14
Just because christ offered himself doesn't mean god didn't command it. You admit it was a sacrifice, you admit that god provided the sacrifice and Heb 9:14 says it was offered to god. The same god who you admit finds human sacrifice unacceptable. You have to do back flips and cartwheels and contort your logic into mind origami to retain your precious delusion.
So let's see, scripturaly speaking god commanded, willed (didn't ask) Jesus to lay down his life to be sacrificed. Jesus gives up his life because god commanded it.
Jason says, Read Hebrews 10:10 and John 10:18 – do you see that word “offer”…? This means Jesus obeyed God’s will. Try this: “…he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” (Phil. 2:8)
Try this fuck-head, Just because christ offered himself, did not mean god did not command it. He willed it.
Is it morally repugnant for a father to command his son to be harmed, tortured and then crucified?
Jason not being able to answer if it is wrong for a father to command his son to be harmed, diverged and said, God didn’t command His son to be harmed or tortured. Neither was a prerequisite to his death. The fact both happened was a reflection of the hatred the Jews and Romans had for Christ.
And yet your motherfucking god being omniscient and omnipotent proceeded with his asinine, atrocious, and ridiculous plan for restoration, knowing full well that his son would be tortured and crucified. Surely an all-knowing all-powerful god could of come up with a better plan, one that wouldn't include, the absurd superstition of having his son being sacrificed as a sin-goat? Maybe a plan that would be believable to sane, non superstitious people.
And isn't it even more vile that a father did so as a sacrifice to himself, like it says in Heb 9:14?
Jason blind as a bat says, It doesn’t say God sacrificed Jesus to Himself. It says Christ “offered himself without spot to God.”
Right, christ offered or sacrificed himself to god. He didn't offer or sacrifice himself to anyone else did he? -- not if it says he offered or sacrificed himself to god.
And yet god did provide Jesus as a sacrifice that according to Heb 9:14 says he was offered to god. God commanded Jesus to offer himself willingly to god himself.
Jason says, Jesus “offered himself without spot to God.” It doesn’t say, “God sacrificed His son to Himself”.
It doesn't say it verbatim, But you admit that god sent Jesus to be a sacrifice.
(You said, how many of the humans offered up were sinless or sent by God to atone for the sins of mankind?) You also admit it was a sacrifice. And Hebrews 9:14 plainly states that Jesus offered himself to GOD. God sent him to be sacrificed, god commanded (willed) Jesus to be sacrificed, Jesus sacrificed himself, and who did Jesus sacrifice (offer, just like a goat sin offering) himself to? god.
Jason putting his diseased, fuck-mind into overdrive says, Are you serious? No wonder you’re an unbeliever. You were a desperately confused and ignorant Christian to begin with. Hebrews 10:1 “The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming–not the realities themselves.” The whole point of the old law was to foreshadow a better, perfect law. Now read Hebrews 8 and drill it into your thick skull.
Yeah that's because your dumb-ass god couldn't get it right the first time around. Thanks for pointing out how much your god resembles a cosmic moron. It still shows that your fuck-wad god handed down ridiculous and bizarre rules for how to perform animal sacrifices and talked about how good it smelled to him, but then contradicts himself by saying he never desired them or found them pleasurable, and to add insult to injury he let's all his mindless sheep know that for the thousands of years, they performed their obsessive rituals, getting the sacrifice just right to please the lord and to make themselves clean from sin, never, ever worked. The only thing your old law foreshadowed was an asshole god who delved out stupid fucking rituals, that really didn't work, only to contradict himself later saying he never desired them when that's all he did back in the day.
God told us to make animal and grain and wine sacrifices to cleanse us of our sins, now he tells us that they didn't really work so god tells us now he will sacrifice his son rid of our sins -- why should I trust this lying motherfucker -- he sure as shit doesn't have a good track record?
Then your god -- who deems human sacrifice unacceptable -- decides to change the old law by commanding his son to lay down his life as a sin sacrifice, that now MAGICALLY brings forth a restoration.
Jason not seeing the condescending nature of my comment and that "magic" is absurd and superstitious, said, Thankfully for us, yes. See? You are smarter then you think!
...And I'm waaaaay smarter than the way you think.
Jason delusionally believes, God also finds it perfectly acceptable to reward his son with eternal life and to give him the power and authority to rule over mankind.
PROVE IT, bitch. Prove that Jesus is has been rewarded with eternal life and has power over us.
Jason, getting bent out of shape says, Are you RETARDED? Seriously. Have you been reading the verses that say Jesus “laid down his life” or that Jesus “offered himself” to God?
RETARD, God doesn’t say “sin offerings are unacceptable”. He says He didn’t desire them or take pleasure in them.
OOOOOOhhhhhh, looks like I struck a nerve. Poor little Jason christian is in trouble. your gonna get it. Jesus isn't gonna like you calling people names.
Matthew 5:22 -- "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever * says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever * says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty into the fiery hell."
Murder is wrong (Exodus 20:13). However, a person might feel angry, and he might become more and more angry. Then he is guilty as well. People sometimes used the word ‘Raca’ which meant that a person was stupid. He had little worth. The word ‘fool’ has the same meaning.
Someone might accuse such a person because they were not behaving well. But that is putting yourself in God’s place as judge. ‘Gehenna’ was another name for Hinnom valley. It was just outside Jerusalem city, and the *Jews threw out their rubbish there. They burned fires there all the time. So it became the name for God’s punishment place. People usually translate it as ‘hell’. God will judge people by the way that they think. He will also judge them by the way that they speak. And he will judge them by the way that they behave. God will judge anger. He says that evil insults are like murder.
1 John 3:15 -- Anyone who hates his brother is murdering him.
You just got your ticket to paradise revoked, asshole, you better suck Jesus' dick a lot or you're fucked -- to oblivion for you, bitch.
And I'm way ahead of you, I've called you all kinds of names, but I don't believe in your sky-fairy or your reputed fairytale book -- the Bible. So fuck off, retard!
Let's not forget what the lord said in Psalm 15:1-5,
1 LORD, who may dwell in your sanctuary?
Who may live on your holy hill?
2 He whose walk is blameless
and who does what is righteous,
who speaks the truth from his heart
3 AND HAS NO SLANDER ON HIS TONGUE,
WHO DOES HIS NEIGHBOR NO WRONG
AND CASTS NO SLUR ON HIS FELLOW MAN,
4 who despises a vile man
but honors those who fear the LORD,
who keeps his oath
even when it hurts,
5 who lends his money without usury
and does not accept a bribe against the innocent.
He who does these things
will never be shaken.
Uh, oh, jason -- there goes your imaginary sanctuary and your imaginary holy hill. Are you on your knees yet? I can hardly wait to hear what twisted logic and loony rationalization you will have, why you haven't sinned against your sky-fairy for calling me a retard. (I called you a retard, not a fool, you're not my brother, I wasn't angry, I didn't mean it to be mean, I'm telling the truth -- excuse, excuse, excuse.)
Reiterating what Jason said, Retard, God doesn’t say “sin offerings are unacceptable”. He says He didn’t desire them or take pleasure in them.
Mega-retard, when you don't desire something; if you don't want something, if you take no pleasure in something, does that mean you like it and find it acceptable? you are such a fucking delusional douche-bag. God took them, evidently, but at the same time found them unacceptable. It's not my asshole, easily confused god; it's yours.
Jason desperately says, Good for you and I don’t care. The Bible still makes it quite clear what sin sacrifices accomplished.
Whoop-d-doo and the quran makes it quite clear if your not muslim you will burn in hell for an eternity. Just because it says it in a book does NOT make it true.
Prove to me your superstitious, magic works.
Jason making extraordinary claims like a crazy preacher says, don’t need to prove it. I’m simply explaining, using small words, that this is what the Bible says. The Bible says Jesus laid his life down for his friends of his own accord.
Well that's what I come to expect from you -- small words. You have failed miserably at using big ones. But if you can't prove it then it's not even worth the paper it's printed on.
You believe in this ridiculous nonsense; this superstitious, mumbojumbo, because you are an ignorant, delusional twat, that believes in fairy tales, that are imagined by men, who used god's supposed voice, as their own, to give it credibility, and you fell for it, invested your life in it and you are too fucked in the head to see it.
You make the extraordinary claim, that Jesus laid down his life, to somehow magically, absolve our sins. The burden of proof is on you and if you can't prove this to be true, then you are nothing but a delusional, zealous, fuck-hole.
Jason trying to mince words and weasel out on what he believes said, I don’t make the claim – the Bible does. Whether or not I can prove it doesn’t make it wrong. This would be an argument from ignorance and you don’t want that, do you…?
The Bible makes the extraordinary claim that you, believe, support, proselytize, and invest your life in, which means you make the same claim. I'm just asking for evidence of how sacrificing a man, magically, takes away a persons sin -- can you do that, dick-wad?
Whether or not you can prove it doesn't make it wrong but it doesn't make it credible. What it does prove is you are a delusional asshole and a gullible simpleton who believes in shit based on nothing more then a fairytale book and a complete and utter lack of evidence.
But you said, God didn’t, and doesn’t, FORCE ANYONE to obey the laws He decreed. Do you remember, asshole? you said, ANYONE.
Jason said, I do remember. I also remember saying “But then Pharaoh is the one example that we’re explicitly told God hardened his heart.” Then I remember you saying that God forced people to obey the laws He decreed. You’ve now provided rather irrelevant references proving God forces His will on people.
Do you remember making this dumb-ass statement?
But you still haven’t proven that anyone, other then Pharaoh, was ever forced to do anything.
Which I proved by the list below that you evidently can't argue and have to turn into a specific argument of obeying the laws that he decreed. It wasn't just obeying the laws he decreed it was they had to OBEY HIM. The list below shows him forcing his people to obey him.
1. hardened Pharaohs heart (you knew this one already even though you said, god did NOT FORCE ANYONE).
2. Jer. 24:7 I will give them a heart to know Me, for I am the LORD; and they will be My people , and I will be their God, for they will return to Me with their whole heart.
3. John 6:44 No one can come to Me unless * the Father who sent Me draws ( metaphor, to draw by inward power, lead, impel him) and I will raise him up on the last day.
4. Ec. 7:14 In the day of prosperity be happy , But in the day of adversity consider-- God has made the one as well as the other So * that man will not discover anything after him.
5. John 12:40 "HE HAS BLINDED THEIR EYES AND HE HARDENED THEIR HEART, SO * THAT THEY WOULD NOT SEE WITH THEIR EYES AND PERCEIVE WITH THEIR HEART, AND BE CONVERTED AND I HEAL
6. De 2:30 But Sihon king of Heshbon was not willing for us to pass through his land; for the LORD your God hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, in order to deliver him into your hand, as today.
7. Jud 7:22 When they blew 300 * trumpets, the LORD set the sword of one against another even throughout the whole army; and the army fled as far as Beth-shittah toward Zererah, as far as the edge of Abel-meholah, by Tabbath
8. 2Th. 2:11 For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false
9. 2 Sam. 12:15 So Nathan went to his house. Then the LORD struck the child that Uriah's widow bore to David, so that he was sick. Baby sure as hell didn't do anything and didn't have a choice in the matter. God forced the baby to become sick and suffer for seven days, only to die. Your god is a sick, vile, cock-sucking motherfucker who is less then the menstrual discharge of a female baboon.
Mankind has freewill because mankind isn’t controlled by force or threat of force from God. Mankind has free will because God doesn’t force anyone to choose Him.
Yeah now you're getting it. The clouds are lifting from that delusion mill you call a brain. That's right in the REAL world god doesn't control us by force or threat of force. He also doesn't answer prayers, he doesn't give us laws to live by, he doesn't control the weather, he doesn't heal the sick, he doesn't bless people, he doesn't damn people, he doesn't give you that great big promotion that you always wanted and he doesn't force you to choose him, because he is not real -- asshole. Now in your imaginary collection of bullshit, you call the Bible, it's a completely different story -- with emphasis on STORY. God controls his people with the threat of force, with a huge list of vile and disturbing curses, in Deut. 28
If god wanted to do lunch, let me get to know him, catch a movie, hang out, be a friend, become a compassionate and helpful uncle figure to my kids, be a mentor, and build a long lasting REAL relationship with me, then I would have more then enough credible information to base a choice on. As it is now I have a fairytale book with zero credibility and a depiction of a Deity who's moral character is monumentally more corrupt and vile then every sadistic dictator, murderer, rapist, torturer, crusader, combined and the zealous rantings of a delusional asshole, Christadelphian.
That's complete bullshit. The only consequence god explains to the uneducated, child-like, Adam and Eve is that they would surely die, on the day, they partook of the forbidden fruit.
Jason really takes a huge leap and diverges by saying, Really? Read Deuteronomy 28. This is a detailed description of consequences if the Israelites didn’t follow God: Yes or No.
No -- it's a vile and demented list of curses, reserved for only the most sadistic and fucked-up Deity, ever imagined, so he could control a people. NO FREE WILL.
Asshole you said, God always explains the consequences of actions before He punishes. If people choose to disobey Him regardless, that’s their fault.
God ALWAYS explains the consequences of actions before he punishes? Then I proved you wrong, with god not doling out the consequences, until after Adam and Eve's actions.
David's baby didn't disobey god but god made him suffer, only to die. Therefore free will does not exist.
Jason laying it on thick says, Wow. Are you serious? Gosh, a baby can’t walk – MANKIND MUST NOT HAVE FREEWILL!!!! THE AGONY!!! Oh no, a baby can’t formulate sentence – MANKIND MUST NOT HAVE FREEWILL!!!!!! WHAT A HORRIBLE LIFE!!! Lol You’re such a tool. My point remains: People choose voluntarily to disobey God. Therefore, freewill exists.
Just another example of gods fucked-up, sadistic, way of imposing his will on others, showing that free will once again has been exterminated.
BTW are you suggesting that a baby doesn't have the same rights to free will that supposedly everyone has? By your diseased logic, abortions are acceptable because, Gosh, a baby can’t walk... or Oh no, a baby can’t formulate sentence.
My point remains: If god intervenes in a babies life causing it to become sick, suffer and die and can't choose one way or the other then free will doesn't exist. NO CHOICE; NO FREE WILL.
David took a census and god punishes at no fault of their own, his chosen people -- no free will.
Jason being naughty in the eyes of his lord and savior says, You are retarded. This has nothing to do with freewill or choosing to follow God or not. Get a grip.
Uh, oh, not with the disparaging retarded thing again. You're mouth is gonna get sore.
It has everything to do with free will being stompped on and David not following god. God's chosen people had no CHOICE in the matter and they were not the ones disobeying and 70,000 of them suffered and died from a horrendous disease. NO CHOICE, NO FREE WILL.
How about the ones who were to scared to disobey god? NO FREE WILL.
Jason says, First of all, you’re admitting that people who weren’t sacred to disobey God have free will.
First off, dumb shit, I'm saying god controlled his children with fear, who were too scared to disobey, while the rest were superstitious, mindless, blind sheep, too ignorant to know that their free will was broken. Works for me. And secondly, in scripture anyone that wasn't a mindless, ignorant sheep, was, controlled by fear -- too scared to disobey god. NO FREE WILL.
Right, free will was had before the murder took place, but in your fairytale Bible world, if some god hovered over me, telling me he would torture me, if I murdered someone or before even thinking of murdering someone, I saw how god -- the mass murdering, baby killing, megalomaniac -- treated my other friends or people by causing them to suffer through diseases, famine, or death by fire, or any vile, demented way god thinks up to control his people, then god would have effectively used fear to control me. NO FREE WILL
Jason said, Blah blah blah.
Excellent retort, stellar well thought out argument, well said, my good man.
Jason said, Crimes were committed all the time in the OT, even with God hovering over them. Therefore, you’re wrong and they had freewill. Try again.
My analogy more accurately explains how your maniacal god controlled his people through sick and vile force and threats of force as opposed to your erroneous analogy:
Nonetheless, on one fine Saturday morning, you walk next door and murder your neighbor. You’re arrested, go before a judge and are found guilty. You spend the rest of your life in prison. At what point was your free will removed: before or after the crime had been committed?
God used the threat of force and force to control his people. Most became broken and obeyed god's will, others were sheep, who blindly followed, and others, who were either sheep or broken -- their free will effectively taken from them for any duration, at some time, finally, rose up out of the shackles of god's demented, and insidious, plan of controlling his children. Just because they finally took matters into their own hands and released themselves from god's brutal mental bondage doesn't mean that they had free will the entire time.
Then you conveniently avoided the rest of my arguments and questions.
Jason, ignores what is too hard to deal with, says, Very perceptive!! And look, I’m ignoring them again!
Of course you are, that's because you are a mindless fucking, asshole, drone, that lets the Bible do your thinking for you. you're a christian pussy, that can't answer with his own mind and when the questions get too difficult and the answers aren't in your fairytale book you have to plop your pussy-ass head in the sand. You got nothing.
Here they are again, for your viewing displeasure.
In any case, if they can't be answered, then I would have to say God's plan is seriously flawed and I would have to conclude the Bible and Christianity is a delusional, human construct, susceptible to fallibility and there really, is nothing gained from it, except an illusion of authority and the illusion of eternal life.
Little Jason Xtianadelphian wallowing in his own delusion that he and his xtian ilk will be restored, living in the land of bliss, for all of eternity, while the other 99.999999999% of the worlds population goes into oblivion.
ALLLLLLL ABOARRRRRRD!!!!!!! HOP ON THE CRAZY TRAIN TO DELUSION-VILLE!
The key words are, "ALL OF THAT", as contrasted to you saying, it's just as simple as choosing life or death.
Jason still making condescending attempts but still failing miserably, says, And “choosing God” consists of “all of that”. Do you find this confusing? Perhaps you find baptism and prayer difficult…?
What's confusing is, you said, it was as simple as choosing life or death, now it's a laundry list of, "ALL OF THATS". And I'm sure there are more strings attached as well, that you still haven't added.
I asked a germane question, If it is so damned important to make a choice about god and to know all his crucial laws, commandments, messages and it is so very important to know exactly what to do (like all your very specific Christadelphian criteria) to obtain eternal salvation, then why did that dumb ass god, of yours, put, in a book, all that convoluted, information, in the form of songs, poems, parables, symbols, dream imagery, and translated from difficult ancient texts, that could be so easily misinterpreted, perverted or interpreted in so many different ways?
Jason being the simpleton that he is said, God says Adam and Eve ate a “fruit” in the Garden of Eden. People state they ate an apple. Whose fault is this ‘misinterpretation’: God or man?
God's, because he should have known better, ass wipe. Being the all-knowing, creator god, you would think he would know how people can err and make multitudes of mistakes. Just because you pick a simple (being the simple minded jack-ass that you are) misinterpretation doesn't mean that there are not thousands of complex interpretations that have been debated for centuries, you fucking asshole. The Bible is still a miss-mash of vague, metaphorical, time and culturally biased, not to be taken literal or to be taken literal (depending how you look at it), easily misinterpreted, ancient texts.
Even your dumb-ass cult has splintered into other sects, with different interpretations. God's shitty plan in it's full glory -- hallelujah.
Asking another germane question I asked, If the Bible, indeed, holds the one and only truth, then why did your asshole god decide to put it into a book that couldn't possibly get to the masses, to deliver his all important messages?
Jason giving a wholly, inadequate answer said, Good thing God invented mouths, feet and the internet!! Otherwise the book would never make it to the masses!!
Yeah so far god's shitty plan of mouths and feet has sucked ass. And with the Internet, more and more people are coming to the same conclusion -- that the Bible is a fucked-up fairytale, that ignorant dumb-asses like yourself base a religion on.
Asking yet, another germane question, If the Bible is so important and the source for the one and only truth, how come only 30% of the world's population is Christian, while the other 70% of the world's population is another non-biblical, religion or non-religious?
Unable to answer, Jason, feebly says, Go ask the 70%.
Of course you don't have an answer -- you are a delusional fuck-head.
And one more germane question, And how come out of the 30% Christian population there are thousands and thousands of sects and denominations who all have varying and vast ideas and interpretations about the Bible? Your fuck-wad, dumb-ass god is doing a real, shitty, job getting his all important (evidently, rightly, interpreted by you) message to his earthly children.
Delusional Jason, knowing what god's got, says, Oh, God got it right, don’t you worry about that. It’s man who screws thing up – you’re a prime example.
How come your shit-for-brains god didn't take that into account, asshole? That's the whole point of the question. And how do you know you're not the one screwing it up?
One more...And lastly, why did god bestow upon you and your small, insignificant, specific, Christian cult, the one and only CORRECT INTERPRETATION that only you, little Jason Adelphian and the Christadelphian drones could decipher?
Jason, being the deluded asshole that he is, "knowing" what god wants and now, after exhaustive, research and amassing vast, amounts of statistics "knows" "plenty" of Non-Adelphians have the correct interpretation says, You’ll be relieved to know there are plenty of non-Christadelphians who have the correct interpretations as well.
Which, by even, conservative estimates, makes you and other non-Christadelphians combined, less then ONE PERCENT of the entire world population. God sure has a fucked up plan for restoration.
Face it Jason, you are an ignorant, mindless, fucked-up drone, asshole, that can't make a decision on his own without credulously, consulting the make-believe, spurious, Bible that is your delusional, diseased, surrogate brain.
Here comes your choo-choo to DELUSION-VILLE.
--S.
Sconnor,
I’ve already proven my beliefs. The only thing you can do is spew out a bunch of vulgarities and hope it gets me upset enough to respond in kind. Sorry, my friend, it won’t work.
See, the only proof I need that Jesus’ death and resurrection atoned for the sins of mankind is found in Scripture. Since you’re unable to argue from it yourself, now you’re resorting to asking me to prove this outside of Scripture. As you well know, I can’t, since there is no record of a future salvation outside of this book. The problem for you though is that this doesn’t prove anything. In fact, you’re committing an argument from ignorance. Just because something can’t be proven to be true, doesn’t make it false. Can you prove Jesus’ blood didn’t atone for the sins of mankin?
And how do you know christ's sacrifice accomplished anything? PROVE IT.
I already have. Now prove it didn't
God finds human sacrifice morally reprehensible and unacceptable, yet, little Jason Christian doesn't see the twisted logic, in his arguments, that it is acceptable that god uses the sacrifice of his son to supposedly, magically, atone for our sins.
The questions were answered. They were: No, no and no. Not surprisingly, you’re obviously unable to offer an intelligent argument proving I’m wrong.
Jason says, No. I’m saying that because Jesus was the Son of God, sent by God to atone for the sins of mankind, who led a perfect, sinless life, it’s an acceptable sacrifice. - PROVE it, bitch.
Already have, my friend. You’re out of brilliant ideas, aren’t you ☺
Jason says, No. I’m saying that because Jesus was the Son of God, sent by God to atone for the sins of mankind... - PROVE it fuck-wad.
Already have. You’re definitely out of brilliant ideas…
Just because christ offered himself doesn't mean god didn't command it.
It was God’s will, but it was Christ’s decision. Hence Jesus was “obedient unto death”.
You admit it was a sacrifice, you admit that god provided the sacrifice and Heb 9:14 says it was offered to god. The same god who you admit finds human sacrifice unacceptable. You have to do back flips and cartwheels and contort your logic into mind origami to retain your precious delusion.
The self-offering of Christ isn’t comparable to any other sacrifice in Scripture. If you can find any other, sinless, Son of God, who offered himself to save the lives of many, and who was raised incorruptible, I’ll gladly admit you’re right.
So let's see, scripturaly speaking god commanded, willed (didn't ask) Jesus to lay down his life to be sacrificed. Jesus gives up his life because god commanded it.
So let’s see, Jesus gave up his life willingly, obeying the will of his Father. Yup, works for me. You?
Try this fuck-head, Just because christ offered himself, did not mean god did not command it. He willed it.
Of course God willed it. But God didn’t force it, otherwise it couldn’t be said Christ was “obedient unto death” or that he “offered himself”. Try again.
And yet your motherfucking god being omniscient and omnipotent proceeded with his asinine, atrocious, and ridiculous plan for restoration, knowing full well that his son would be tortured and crucified. Surely an all-knowing all-powerful god could of come up with a better plan, one that wouldn't include, the absurd superstition of having his son being sacrificed as a sin-goat? Maybe a plan that would be believable to sane, non superstitious people.
Yawn. Like I said: God didn’t command for His son to be harmed or tortured. Question answered. Get over it.
And isn't it even more vile that a father did so as a sacrifice to himself, like it says in Heb 9:14?
Jesus gave up his life willing, laying it down for his friends. Try again.
Right, christ offered or sacrificed himself to god. He didn't offer or sacrifice himself to anyone else did he? -- not if it says he offered or sacrificed himself to god.
Like I said, it doesn’t say God sacrificed Jesus to Himself. It says Christ “offered himself without spot to God”. Thanks though.
And yet god did provide Jesus as a sacrifice that according to Heb 9:14 says he was offered to god. God commanded Jesus to offer himself willingly to god himself.
And Christ was obedient and did so, offering himself to God.
It doesn't say it verbatim, But you admit that god sent Jesus to be a sacrifice.
Absolutely. Who else was sent to be a sacrifice for the sins of mankind?
(You said, how many of the humans offered up were sinless or sent by God to atone for the sins of mankind?) You also admit it was a sacrifice. And Hebrews 9:14 plainly states that Jesus offered himself to GOD. God sent him to be sacrificed, god commanded (willed) Jesus to be sacrificed, Jesus sacrificed himself, and who did Jesus sacrifice (offer, just like a goat sin offering) himself to? god.
I’m not arguing any of that. Jesus was “obedient unto death” by offering himself to his Father to atone for the sins of mankind. Now, answer the question: how many of the humans offered up were sinless or sent by God to atone for the sins of mankind?
Yeah that's because your dumb-ass god couldn't get it right the first time around.
Actually, it’s because the old law was purposely designed to foreshadow Christ and the new law. Don’t you know anything…?
Prove that Jesus is has been rewarded with eternal life and has power over us.
I already have. Now prove he hasn’t.
‘Gehenna’ was another name for Hinnom valley. It was just outside Jerusalem city, and the *Jews threw out their rubbish there. They burned fires there all the time. So it became the name for God’s punishment place. People usually translate it as ‘hell’. God will judge people by the way that they think. He will also judge them by the way that they speak. And he will judge them by the way that they behave. God will judge anger. He says that evil insults are like murder.
Yawn. Whenever you have something new and interesting to share, let me know.
Mega-retard, when you don't desire something; if you don't want something, if you take no pleasure in something, does that mean you like it and find it acceptable?
Give me a verse that says God found sin offerings unacceptable.
Prove to me your superstitious, magic works.
Prove to me it doesn’t.
Well that's what I come to expect from you -- small words. You have failed miserably at using big ones. But if you can't prove it then it's not even worth the paper it's printed on.
And you can’t disprove it.
The Bible makes the extraordinary claim that you, believe, support, proselytize, and invest your life in, which means you make the same claim. I'm just asking for evidence of how sacrificing a man, magically, takes away a persons sin -- can you do that, dick-wad?
I’ve already given you the evidence. Now I’d like something proving he didn’t atone for sins. Go for it.
But you said, God didn’t, and doesn’t, FORCE ANYONE to obey the laws He decreed. Do you remember, asshole? you said, ANYONE.
And I’ve already addressed this.
Which I proved by the list below that you evidently can't argue and have to turn into a specific argument of obeying the laws that he decreed. It wasn't just obeying the laws he decreed it was they had to OBEY HIM. The list below shows him forcing his people to obey him.
The discussion was never about God forcing people to obey Him. It was about forcing people to obey the laws He decreed. If you wanted to argue the former, you should have made that clear at the beginning.
God controls his people with the threat of force, with a huge list of vile and disturbing curses, in Deut. 28
Yet threat of “vile and disturbing curses” didn’t control the Israelites. They still disobeyed. Try again, please.
Jason really takes a huge leap and diverges by saying, Really? Read Deuteronomy 28. This is a detailed description of consequences if the Israelites didn’t follow God: Yes or No. -- No -- it's a vile and demented list of curses, reserved for only the most sadistic and fucked-up Deity, ever imagined, so he could control a people. NO FREE WILL.
Deuteronomy 28 is a detail description of consequences if the Israelites didn’t follow God because of this: “But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee:” (Deut 28:15) Seems like a list of consequences to me. Therefore, you’re wrong and God did explain the consequences for disobeying Him.
God ALWAYS explains the consequences of actions before he punishes? Then I proved you wrong, with god not doling out the consequences, until after Adam and Eve's actions.
He explained the consequences to Adam & Eve and He explained the consequences to the Israelites. What are you having trouble figuring out?
Just another example of gods fucked-up, sadistic, way of imposing his will on others, showing that free will once again has been exterminated.
Lol You’re a tool.
My point remains: If god intervenes in a babies life causing it to become sick, suffer and die and can't choose one way or the other then free will doesn't exist. NO CHOICE; NO FREE WILL.
And your point is idiotic since babies don’t have freewill whether God exists or not. Such a retard…
It has everything to do with free will being stompped on and David not following god. God's chosen people had no CHOICE in the matter and they were not the ones disobeying and 70,000 of them suffered and died from a horrendous disease. NO CHOICE, NO FREE WILL.
And like I said, this has nothing to do with freewill or choosing to follow God or not. Thanks.
First off, dumb shit, I'm saying god controlled his children with fear, who were too scared to disobey, while the rest were superstitious, mindless, blind sheep, too ignorant to know that their free will was broken. Works for me. And secondly, in scripture anyone that wasn't a mindless, ignorant sheep, was, controlled by fear -- too scared to disobey god. NO FREE WILL.
Prove it.
Right, free will was had before the murder took place, but in your fairytale Bible world, if some god hovered over me, telling me he would torture me, if I murdered someone or before even thinking of murdering someone, I saw how god -- the mass murdering, baby killing, megalomaniac -- treated my other friends or people by causing them to suffer through diseases, famine, or death by fire, or any vile, demented way god thinks up to control his people, then god would have effectively used fear to control me. NO FREE WILL
God did all of this when He passed his laws yet people still committed murder and broke His commandments. Oops, there goes your theory.
My analogy more accurately explains how your maniacal god controlled his people through sick and vile force and threats of force as opposed to your erroneous analogy:
Irrelevant. Crimes were committed all the time in the OT, even with God hovering over them. Likewise, crimes are committed all the time today, even with the threat of the law hanging over them. Therefore, you’re wrong and they had freewill. Try again.
God used the threat of force and force to control his people. Most became broken and obeyed god's will, others were sheep, who blindly followed, and others, who were either sheep or broken -- their free will effectively taken from them for any duration, at some time, finally, rose up out of the shackles of god's demented, and insidious, plan of controlling his children. Just because they finally took matters into their own hands and released themselves from god's brutal mental bondage doesn't mean that they had free will the entire time.
So they did have free will.
Jason,
Jason thinking he has proved his beliefs said, I’ve already proven my beliefs.
You haven't proven shit. Except that you are a delusional, asshole, who believes in a sky fairy who put his all important information into a fairy tale book -- the wholly unsubstantiated, reputed Bible. You got shit.
Jason avoiding my other arguments, says, The only thing you can do is spew out a bunch of vulgarities and hope it gets me upset enough to respond in kind. Sorry, my friend, it won’t work.
It already did, dumb-fuck. I've already mind-fucked you, asshole. Remember, I struck a nerve and you resorted to calling me names. Remember you called me a RETARD.
You keep calling me names and not following Jesus' commandments, you must like sucking Jesus' dick.
You're gonna get it. Jesus isn't gonna like you calling people names.
Matthew 5:22 -- "But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever * says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever * says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty into the fiery hell."
Murder is wrong (Exodus 20:13). However, a person might feel angry, and he might become more and more angry. Then he is guilty as well. People sometimes used the word ‘Raca’ which meant that a person was stupid. He had little worth. The word ‘fool’ has the same meaning.
Someone might accuse such a person because they were not behaving well. But that is putting yourself in God’s place as judge. ‘Gehenna’ was another name for Hinnom valley. It was just outside Jerusalem city, and the *Jews threw out their rubbish there. They burned fires there all the time. So it became the name for God’s punishment place. People usually translate it as ‘hell’. God will judge people by the way that they think. He will also judge them by the way that they speak. And he will judge them by the way that they behave. God will judge anger. He says that evil insults are like murder.
1 John 3:15 -- Anyone who hates his brother is murdering him.
You just got your ticket to paradise revoked, asshole, you better suck Jesus' dick a lot or you're fucked -- to oblivion for you, bitch.
And I'm way ahead of you, I've called you all kinds of names, but I don't believe in your sky-fairy or your reputed fairytale book -- the Bible. So fuck off, retard!
Let's not forget what the lord said in Psalm 15:1-5,
1 LORD, who may dwell in your sanctuary?
Who may live on your holy hill?
2 He whose walk is blameless
and who does what is righteous,
who speaks the truth from his heart
3 AND HAS NO SLANDER ON HIS TONGUE,
WHO DOES HIS NEIGHBOR NO WRONG
AND CASTS NO SLUR ON HIS FELLOW MAN,
4 who despises a vile man
but honors those who fear the LORD,
who keeps his oath
even when it hurts,
5 who lends his money without usury
and does not accept a bribe against the innocent.
He who does these things
will never be shaken.
Uh, oh, jason -- there goes your imaginary sanctuary and your imaginary holy hill. Are you on your knees yet? I can hardly wait to hear what twisted logic and loony rationalization you will have, why you haven't sinned against your sky-fairy for calling me a retard. (I called you a retard, not a fool, you're not my brother, I wasn't angry, I didn't mean it to be mean, I'm telling the truth -- excuse, excuse, excuse.)
Jason submits feeble evidence by saying, See, the only proof I need that Jesus’ death and resurrection atoned for the sins of mankind is found in Scripture.
Which is nothing more than a big pile of steaming shit and pus. You must fore go reason (being a brain-dead zombie, that's easy for you) and PRETEND scripture is valid. You have CHOSEN to believe in superstitious shit, ridiculous magic, talking snakes, talking donkeys and the undead walking around. That is no proof, dick-wad, that's a DELUSION. That's like saying you proved it was true because it was found in the scripture of the Qur'an or the Bhagavad Gita.
Jason thinks I can't argue for myself says, Since you’re unable to argue from it yourself,
My arguments hold firm. Just because you twist and contort logic to fit your world-view doesn't mean my arguments wern't germane.
Jason feebly continues,...now you’re resorting to asking me to prove this outside of Scripture. As you well know, I can’t, since there is no record of a future salvation outside of this book.
That's right asshole, You got nothing more than a fairy tale book, that you have invested your whole worthless life to. A fairy tale book that has absolutely zero credibility, except what you have imagined and assigned to it.
Jason trying desperately to use debate logic, says, The problem for you though is that this doesn’t prove anything. In fact, you’re committing an argument from ignorance. Just because something can’t be proven to be true, doesn’t make it false. Can you prove Jesus’ blood didn’t atone for the sins of mankin?
This is no problem, because superstitious, magic, is NOT true, you delusional fuck-tard. You really shouldn't play with difficult debate arguments like "an argument from ignorance". You have no idea what you are doing. It's not an argument from ignorance, because we KNOW in REALITY, that magic doesn't exist. The burden of proof rest squarely in your lap. You make the ridiculously, extraordinary, claim that Jesus died, to somehow, "magically" atone for our sins and then three days later, he became one of the walking dead. None of this nonsense is based in reality. Not only do you have to prove magic exists, you have to prove, specifically, Jesus' death magically atoned for sins and even more specifically you must demonstrate how and where the sins have gone. If you declare you believe in talking snakes, like in Genesis, it's not my job to prove snakes can't talk. The burden of proof is on you to prove your ridiculous belief that snakes can talk.
Besides, in the real world blood can't atone for shit; this can be proved in three easy steps:
1. In reality, you can't magically remove anything by sacrificing someone, let alone something intangible, such as sin.
2. In reality, superstitious thought is a belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic.
3. To believe in such nonsense you must remove all reason from your thinking.
Furthermore:
Presumably you don't believe Joseph smith was magically bestowed the golden plates from an angel. Now think real hard -- I know this may hurt a little -- why don't you believe in that magical outcome?
Presumably you don't believe that the Qur'an was magically revealed to Muhammad by archangel Gabriel -- why don't you believe in that magical outcome?
Presumably you don't believe in Eastern religion's magical reincarnation, where one is, "magically", able to escape from the cycle of death and rebirth and achieve salvation through the attainment of the highest spiritual state. In much the same manner as Christ took the sins upon himself, the Hindu God Shiva swallowed the poison, halahala, from a churning ocean, so that it would magically save creation.
Now, think, of all the reasons, why you don't believe in these superstitious, magical out comes and then you'll start to get the idea why your belief in a magical atonement through a sacrifice is ridiculous and delusional.
And then, you should, equally, see how ridiculous it would be, for me, to ask you:
1. Can you prove that an angel didn't bestow the Golden Plates to Joseph Smith?
2. Can you prove that Muhammad didn't receive the Qur'an from Gabriel?
3. Can you prove that reincarnation doesn't work?
4. Can you prove Shiva didn't save creation by swallowing an ocean full of poison?
Is it beginning to sink in? You have a delusional belief in something without any proof, you make the extraordinary claim of a magical atonement based on nothing but a fairytale book that has zero credibility and your only DUMB-FUCK argument is, "can you prove christ's blood DIDN'T magically, atone for sins". Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and that burden of proof, is for you and you alone, to validate. You are the lunatic with the extraordinarily, insane magical beliefs -- so prove it.
You haven't proven shit, YOU GOT NOTHING, BUT BULLSHIT!
So I ask again, PROVE IT BITCH!
Jason throws down and says, The self-offering of Christ isn’t comparable to any other sacrifice in Scripture. If you can find any other, sinless, Son of God, who offered himself to save the lives of many, and who was raised incorruptible, I’ll gladly admit you’re right.
Amazingly, In Hindu scripture, it is believed that Lord Shiva is part of the Hindu trinity. Lord Shiva is one of three gods that is an extension of the one supreme being, Brahman.
1. Self-offering of Christ is comparable to Shiva swallowing the poison, in the churning ocean to save all of creation.
2. Lord Shiva is part of the Trimurti (the Hindu Trinity) and is the representation of the three projections of the Supreme Reality, Brahman.
3. Lord Shiva means, "The Pure One" and "the One who purifies everyone by the very utterance of His name."
4. Lord Shiva also means, the One who is eternally pure, or the One who can never have any contamination of the imperfection of Rajas and Tamas.
Again in Hindu Scripture, in much the same manner as Christ took the sins upon himself, Shiva, an extension of the supreme being and incorruptible, swallowed the poison,halhala so that it would save mankind. Shiva's act is celebrated at the Hindu festival Shivatri, also in March at about the same time as Easter.
I said, Yeah that's because your dumb-ass god couldn't get it right the first time around.
Jason using twisted logic says, Actually, it’s because the old law was purposely designed to foreshadow Christ and the new law. Don’t you know anything…?
It just proves that your god is not omniscient and is a shitty designer. He wasted everyone's time with bullshit laws like don't eat shrimp or pork which doesn't for shadow anything. It plainly shows your god is a human construct.
‘Gehenna’ was another name for Hinnom valley. It was just outside Jerusalem city, and the *Jews threw out their rubbish there. They burned fires there all the time. So it became the name for God’s punishment place. People usually translate it as ‘hell’. God will judge people by the way that they think. He will also judge them by the way that they speak. And he will judge them by the way that they behave. God will judge anger. He says that evil insults are like murder.
Yawn. Whenever you have something new and interesting to share, let me know.
Keep yawning big, cause you are going to have to fit the holy dick in your mouth for a long time. Your god is judging you by the way you speak. You are disgusting in the sight of god for calling me names. Keep repenting -- slurp, slurp, slurp.
I said, Mega-retard, when you don't desire something; if you don't want something, if you take no pleasure in something, does that mean you like it and find it acceptable?
Give me a verse that says God found sin offerings unacceptable.
Heb 10:8 After saying above, "SACRIFICES AND OFFERINGS AND WHOLE BURNT OFFERINGS AND FOR SIN YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, NOR HAVE YOU TAKEN PLEASURE
Again, if he did not desire sin sacrifices nor did he take pleasure in them, that means he did not find it acceptable. If you do not DESIRE mint chocolate chip ice cream and it gives you no PLEASURE, can you make an honest, logical argument that you find mint chocolate chip ice cream ACCEPTABLE?
But you said, God didn’t, and doesn’t, FORCE ANYONE to obey the laws He decreed. Do you remember, asshole? you said, ANYONE.
Your god has set a precedence in forcing people to do things. Just like in a court of law if you are caught lying you are a liar. God was caught forcing his will on others. There will was subjugated.
Jason strains and says, Therefore, you’re wrong and God did explain the consequences for disobeying Him.
No, it's a vile and demented list of curses, reserved for only the most sadistic and fucked-up Deity, ever imagined, He used fear to control people. If you are a controlled people through fear then your free will is stripped from you.
Jason lies and says, He explained the consequences to Adam & Eve and He explained the consequences to the Israelites. What are you having trouble figuring out?
What are you having trouble figuring out? God only told Adam and Eve that they would surely die the day they ate of the fruit. He doled out more consequences subsequently. So either you are an asshole, or a liar or you haven't taken the time to re-read Genesis and you are only relying on assumptions and memory. You said, God ALWAYS explains the consequences of actions before he punishes? That is completely wrong.
Jason making a demented assertion says, And your point is idiotic since babies don’t have freewill whether God exists or not. Such a retard…
Calling names, Jesus isn't going to like that.
With your twisted logic the killing of babies is morally acceptable. They are still beings who have the right to life just like anyone and should not be used or made to suffer and die as a punishment for a crime committed by someone else. When god made the child sick, caused it to suffer and die -- it's will was forever removed. You are a sick demented psycho-fuck to worship a vile fucking Deity like that.
I said, It has everything to do with free will being stomped on and David not following god. God's chosen people had no CHOICE in the matter and they were not the ones disobeying and 70,000 of them suffered and died from a horrendous disease. NO CHOICE, NO FREE WILL.
Jason, as usual can't comprehend says, And like I said, this has nothing to do with freewill or choosing to follow God or not. Thanks.
It absolutely does. By causing them to have a disease and to suffer and die at no fault of their own is to remove their free will. By doing this, god makes people choose him, otherwise he will cause you to suffer and die. NO FREE WILL.
I said, First off, dumb shit, I'm saying god controlled his children with fear, who were too scared to disobey, while the rest were superstitious, mindless, blind sheep, too ignorant to know that their free will was broken. Works for me. And secondly, in scripture anyone that wasn't a mindless, ignorant sheep, was, controlled by fear -- too scared to disobey god. NO FREE WILL.
Jason says, Prove it.
Ephesians 5:21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.
Luke 1:50 And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation.
Collosians 3:22 Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eye service, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God.
I said, God used the threat of force and force to control his people. Most became broken and obeyed god's will, others were sheep, who blindly followed, and others, who were either sheep or broken -- their free will effectively taken from them for any duration, at some time, finally, rose up out of the shackles of god's demented, and insidious, plan of controlling his children. Just because they finally took matters into their own hands and released themselves from god's brutal mental bondage doesn't mean that they had free will the entire time.
So they did have free will.
In the real word yes. In the superstitious world of the Bible some had no free will, because through fear, they obeyed god, some were controlled by action of violence, some were made, magically, to obey, while some had no free will and eventually broke from the bondage of the supposed will of god.
Moving into reality and away from the book of fairy tales here are a couple of extraneous free will contradictions to deal with:
1) If your god is "omniscient"(knows the future set of events, including our "choices"), then we only have the illusion of "free will", at best.
2) If we are all "sinners" by birth, and if "sin" is "evil", then we don't have the "free will" to resist "evil".
NO FREE WILL.
--S.
I do not understand why this conversation - turned - argument simply stopped here. Perhaps there is mroe and I simply cannot see it. But if this argument did stop here, allow me to say a couple of words.
This is directed to Jason:
I do not understand why you are putting up with Sconner's constant abuse towards you. And for whateverreason you are doing this for, it doesn't seem to be changing his mind. He obviously loves (or at least loved, seeming that he stopped commenting after this) arguing, cussing, and degrading you, and seeing that you continue to engage him in conversation is feeding fuel t the fire. He doesn't want to be changed, he wants to escape from his problems, and one of those ways is by "talking" to you. He obviously cannot see your way, and I personally do notbelieve he will simply by you giving your logic. However, I also see him bringing up rather good points and you are simply avoiding them, or pretending to not see his point. (Or perhaps you don't, and if you truly don't, please forgive that last remark).
Next, this is for Sconner:
I understand that you're in pain, and that you probably don't want to hear me saying this, but you need to be honest with yourself. This is bigger than just god commiting what you believe are atrocities, and these "reasons" you have for not believing, trusting, and loving god are all bunk. You simply don't believe, trust, or love him,and you want to justify why you don't with those reasons, simply so that you won't have to be alone. I know you probably will start spouting you're bitterness all on me now, and I honestly don't know how anything I've said or going to say is going to help you. (Which of course you'll probably wonder, "then why the hell is he even bothering?") Indeed, I can't really do much for you except to simplyencourage you to be more honest about yourself. That's all.
p.s. Spouting swearwords every other sentence do little to help your arguments...all they do is convey how bitter you are.
Great stuff. Are you on reddit? If so, I want to friend you. If not, sign up real quick and I will friend you. :)
I was wondering if anyone knows any good sites or books that present solid arguments against the Catholic concept of Natural Law. There are some theists driving me nuts with that crap and I have no idea currently how to counter it.
By the way, all of Jason's nonsense on here reminds me of a very special Biblical passage in Judges. Specifically, Judges 11:29-39, where God asks Jephthah to burn his daughter alive in thanks for God helping him win a battle. Disgusting, primitive deity.
Actually, God doesn't ask Jephthah to do anything. It says that Jephthah made the vow as a "trade" with God: If God helps him win the batle with the Ammonites, then he will offer the first person who comes into his house to greet him to be offered as a payment. It was based on the foolish thinking that many people have: That if you do something good, then something good will come in return, or, if I may put it this way, a child saying to his friend, "If you let me borrow your toy, I'll let you have a piece of my candy."
It had less to do with thanking God and more to do with trading services.
Nephilim, what exactly are you trying to counter within the Catholic concept of natural law?
The Jephthah story is my favorite bible story, because it finally took the remnants of my belief in this idiotic book and smashed them on the rocks. After being horrified by the contents of this story, I started to recognize all of the other silly bible stories for what they are: mythology. And not very good mythology either. Certainly the Greeks and Romans had better writers.
Well, Shakespeare referenced the Jephthah story in "Hamlet" (presumably for an allegorical purpose), so...
Oh, I give up. You know what I can't stand anymore? Biblical allegories: Because there's nothing worthwhile one can learn from a book in which civil rights are spat upon, genocide is committed FAR too often, and a maniacally jealous god wreaks havoc on his "Chosen People".
That's why.
What these comments tell me is that although atheists say they don't believe in God, they sure as hell hate the Jews.
And what the heck?
Everybody loves to hate the Jews.
Post a Comment