It is interesting what one can discover when they choose to read the bible with a mature mind which is willing to think... The Contemporary English Version reads; "Don't you know that eveil people won't have a share in the blessings of God's kingdom? Don't fool yourselves! No one who is immoral or worships idols or is unfaithful in marraige or is a pervert or behaves like a homosexual will share in God's kingdom. Neither will any thief or greedy person or drunkard or anyone who curses and cheats others. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. Could it be that the drunkards are condemned not because they drink but because of what they do when they are drunk? Such a position precludes believing in a loving God at all. Babies die everyday, children die everyday, I will die, you will die. The condition of man himself necessitates that God be a God Of Justice. If that weren't the case Hitlers would run wild, and those using paritcularly loving names to obscure their baleful intents.
How convenient. Titus 2:2 That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate (self-control), sound in faith, in charity, in patience. Titus 2:4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, Titus 2:6 Young men likewise exhort to be sober minded 1 Peter 5:8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: I think you get the message- there are many other scriptures pertaining to being sober. I believe "getting plastered", even occasionally, would qualify as not being sober. My apologies- I had read over your post rather quickly and misunderstood the other information you were wanting. The Bible states that god told them to do this, given you believe the Bible is true, that should suffice he ordered it done. My opinion of killing babies and children is that it should never be condoned- not even if god is the one doing it. If you want to condone it, that is your prerogative. Let's put it this way- even if the Bible were true, it doesn't paint a pretty picture of god. Blood thirsty, selfish, manipulative, and above all a baby killer. It doesn't take a person to believe in the BIble to SEE god's actions according to the content therein. Always assume that a christian is correct ie bible is true? If you can't prove the bible is true with facts- you lose
By "after resurrection" I'm assuming you mean to be judged? If so- what happens to those who aren't in the book of life? Do they cease to exist then or are they tortured for eternity?
Look, to me there is a difference between a baby dying due to an illness &/or accident and a baby dying because god commanded that someone dash it into pieces before their parents eyes. Can you see the difference?
Heart, your argument is null here since you say nothing of the baby's final destination. What would happen if the babies killed went to heaven?
"I think you get the message- there are many other scriptures pertaining to being sober. I believe "getting plastered", even occasionally, would qualify as not being sober." Does it say to be sober 24/7 365 days a year? No. There's nothing wrong with drinking every once in awhile. Jesus supplied the best wine for a wedding party. The reason it was odd was because he left the best for last. It was standard practice to give the good stuff first and then give the not so good later since everyone will be too drunk to notice. "Always assume that a christian is correct ie bible is true?" Welcome to Logic 101. If you're going to show a contradiction you have to assume the premis is true. If you assume the Bible is false then there's nothing to talk about as without the Bible there are no premises to use to prove a contradiction. You have to assume the Bible is true and either question what it teaches or show a contradiction. "Can you see the difference?" Since you think assuming the Bible is false is the intelligent way to go about debating Christianity, that never happened. The Bible is false, therefore God never commanded that, therefore there's no discussion. Congradulations. And you havn't explained why God killing or ordering the killing of babies is bad. Ben
That one statement was once used to justify the killing of newborn children. That you can't see how skewed that view of life (e.g. "We must kill our child to save him.") truly is speaks volumes about religion's ability to cloud even the most basic of relationships (the love between mother and child), not to mention the very foundations of rational, humane behavior. If God's judgment is all that matters anyway, then why should murder laws even exist? Shouldn't we keep murder open to all who may receive orders from God to kill somebody? How ironic that Christians tend to oppose all forms of abortion; after all, how do you know they aren't just sending their children to Heaven? Josh It's just a ride. - Bill Hicks
Assuming they went to heaven, does it make a difference that god ordered them to be dashed into pieces before their parents eyes? To tell you the truth, the story sounds a whole lot like a horror flick. Let me ask you this, if someone killed a child- should it make a difference how you view that person given the child went to heaven?
Ben, I hate to break it to you. That's not an ad hominem attack. You might want to look up phrases before assuming you know what they mean. For future reference, here is an example of the ad hominem or "attack on character" fallacy: Fred: "The universe is made up of one big goat." Bill: "Of course you would say that. You're a goat-lover." Fred: "But what about the evidence I presented?" Bill: "It doesn't matter because you screw goats." I have not attacked your person in any way - your positions perhaps, but I have neither called you names nor attempted to discredit you using some vague guilt by association. Jenyar and I disagree quite strongly, but if memory serves me, niether of us has stated that the other is incapable of introducing valid evidence simply because of his opinion. Telling unbelievers or skeptics that, by virtue of their positions, they can have no valid view or interpretation of the Bible is a clear example of ad hominem. You said crying is the result of a baby's selfishness, and therefore, Jesus did not do it. (quote: "Babies cry because they want something. And they want it now. They're selfish and don't trust their parents. Jesus had all the same reasons to cry as sinful babies and yet didn't.") You have not, however, shown even one Bible verse to back up this (rather puerile) claim. Umm, no. I'm saying if God created us to be needy creatures, then it is not our fault that we are needy. It might help if you read posts before replying. This has nothing to do with the devil whatsoever - merely God's design. If we were created needing to be fed, clothed, and loved, then we are not at fault for wanting those things. Yeah, you're right. How can I argue with the painstaking research you've presented here? You know, it's quite hard to debate someone who continues to consistently deny his previous statements. I've got an idea though. Why don't we narrow this down and you can do some of that "proving me wrong" that you're so frothing at the mouth to do... Here's all I want to see in your next reply: a valid Bible verse backing up your claim that Jesus was so unselfish that he did not cry as a baby. If you cannot produce this, then I'm moving on to debate someone who wants to discuss religion on its own merits, not simply command that others adopt his views as part of the conditions of debate. I do not view this discussion as a contest; it is a place to air differing opinions in a lively, interesting way. If you came here looking for a trophy, I'm sorry to disappoint you. Josh It's just a ride. - Bill Hicks
No, it doesn't say those exact words, but it does say be . To me "be" means do it always. In I Peter 1: 15-16 15But now you must be holy in everything you do, just as God—who chose you to be his children—is holy.16For he himself has said, “You must be holy because I am holy." So when he says be holy, does that mean one can interpret that they don't have to be holy all of the time because it doesn't say 24/7? If we go on your logic then, this would apply to any of the sins listed in 1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-10. So a person can steal once in awhile- just as long as they do not put their stealing before god. A person can engage in homosexuality - just as long as they do not put it before god and so on and so on. I'll be the first to say that I'm not opposed to drinking- I drink. All I am doing is pointing out the scriptures in the bible. Tell me, were you spoon-fed religion and just automatically bought it or were you one who researched it before you made your decision? How do you expect people to just have the mind set of "oh, it's in the bible, it MUST be true"? How do you expect others to find out for themselves if something jives with them or not? You want to deprive them of this right.. Why? Just because they shouldn't have a different view than yourself? Do I really have to explain why taking a life is bad? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
"You said crying is the result of a baby's selfishness, " Did I say that was the only reason they cry? No. "Do I really have to explain why taking a life is bad?" You're going to have to explain why God taking a life or ordering the death of someone is bad, yes. I thought I was very clear about that. I even explained the process of how to go about arguing your position. You can assume the Bible is false and pat yourself on the back. Or assume the Bible is true and demonstrate a contradiction. Rolly eyes right back at you. "How do you expect people to just have the mind set of "oh, it's in the bible, it MUST be true"? " When did I expect that? Do you understand a single word I'm saying? You and JustARide have a real talent for not being able to comprehend even the most basic of concepts even after I explain it to you a number of times. So, until you can demonstrate an ability to comprehend plain english, I'm done. Ben
"How ironic that Christians tend to oppose all forms of abortion" There's nothing ironic about it. We don't have the authority to take a life. God does. God has the authority to take a life and to order that a life be taken. If God ordered someone to kill and they did and they could prove God really told them and not the devil or their own thoughts, they might get some sympathy. Name one person in recent history who has proven that God told them to do something that if God had not told them to do, would be immoral. "Shouldn't we keep murder open to all who may receive orders from God to kill somebody?" It's called capital punishment. Authority has been granted by God to the government to take lives. "I couldn't have expressed it better." That's obvious. Ben
Your entire statement implied that the act of crying was directly linked to selfishness. If crying was not somehow indicative of selfishness, why is whether or not Jesus cried even an issue? Why, when discussing crying babies, did you even bring up the idea that Jesus did not cry? Ostensibly, you wanted to prove that, if babies were better people, they wouldn't cry. So, you used Jesus as an example. By the way, you still managed to supply no Biblical evidence of this fact. Now, am I supposed to assume you are correct before I can prove you wrong? Why should I assume something for which you do not even have a prima facia case? I can only assume you are making things up, since you will not provide a source. You like to accuse me of not understanding the basics of debate. Well, surely you're aware of a little thing called "supporting evidence." I've asked you for this multiple times and you continue to ignore me. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. Here's your quote: "Ever wonder why the Bible says Jesus didn't cry as a baby?" Now, I'm asking you one more time. Point me toward the Bible verse that says Jesus did not cry as a baby or concede that you have no textual evidence for your belief. You want to know why taking a life in God's name is bad? Study the Crusades. The issue is whether or not we can know if God orders people to kill other people. At the time being, there is no way to prove if anyone has ever been ordered by God to kill someone -- unless you simply accept the Bible's self-claimed truthfulness. Here's how the circular logic works: Bill: "How can you know whether or not God ordered anyone to kill people?" Fred: "Because the Bible says he did." Bill: "How do you know the Bible is true?" Fred: "Because it says it is." One might say, "There is also no proof that God did not order killings." Here are two problems with assuming God does order killings: 1) There is no concrete way of knowing which of the (oftetimes conflicting) parties is actually receiving messages from God, and 2) The belief that God has ordered wars and killing has only led to more killing in his name (e.g. Crusades, Inquisitions, witch burnings, etc.) We are quoting passages and examining them as to their validity, likelihood, and general consistency with the rest of the Bible. In that way, we are, for the sake of argument, "assuming" the passages are true. Then, we are deconstructing them. What else are you looking for? Look back at this thread, Ben. Jenyar and I have been entertaining each other's positions, again for argument's sake, in order to make our respective points. There is a difference between entertaining truth or falsity and accepting truth or falsity. Aside from converting on the spot, I fail to see what more I could do, regarding the entertaining of assumptions. Also, your methodology seems to suggest that, if something cannot or is not proven to be false, it must be true. This is another logical fallacy, technically called argumentum ad ignorantiam. Look it up if you want to learn something instead of simply impressing us with your own razor-sharp comebacks. Ben, you seem to be quite an angry person, very much out to prove something to us evildoers. I might suggest you calm down for a moment and cease being a reflexive contrarian for just a second here. It's just an internet messageboard... not the trial of the century. In order to debate, each side must entertain the other side's position in order to point out inconsistencies. I am doing just that. You asserted that Baby Jesus never cried. OK then. Let's assume he did not cry because he was unselfish and knew his parents would take care of him. Now, you seem to be saying that, because I cannot point to specific evidence that he did cry (aside from the fact that all babies, except extremely unhealthy ones, cry) that you must be correct. Meanwhile, you have provided absolutely no evidence for your claim, unless repetition somehow counts as proof. Anyway, if you choose to leave -- while we're learning to comprehend English, perhaps you could learn how to spell words like "ridiculous" and "congratulations." Josh It's just a ride. - Bill Hicks
Exactly how might one go about proving God really told him/her to kill somebody? I'm curious. Regail me. Of course no one in recent history has proven God told anyone anything. It's patently unprovable. But I can point you to a couple people, on opposite sides as a matter of fact, who say God has told to them to kill -- namely Osama bin Laden and George W. Bush. Now, if you're willing to believe God actually tells some people to kill (as the Bible says), then you must come up with some way of telling who is really killing for God and who isn't. So, once again. I'm curious. How would you go about that? Yeah. It's a real bummer when we mistakenly kill one who happens to be innocent, isn't it? This is why I oppose the death penalty. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And where exactly in the Bible does it say that the government of the United States of America has the right to kill someone? Does the Bible also grant authority to the Chinese government to execute people? How about the crown jewel of corruption, the Saudi Royal Family? If whoever happens to be in power has a God-given right to execute people, then Saddam Hussein was perfectly justified in the massive executions he carried out. Interesting. Let me guess... your counter-argument will be, "Saddam Hussein abused his powers. The US doesn't." If you want to go this route, then let me add one more question. If God granted authority to the government to execute people, how can you tell which governments are abusing their powers? It seems like that would once again fall back on personal opinion, would it not? By the way, since the death penalty can only be carried out by authorities... how can we be sure that God will only speak to people in government? What if God tells some regular Joe to commit murder? Here's a little challenge. Prove to me that God really ordered the Crusades and I'll prove to you that God really ordered Osama bin Laden to take down the twin towers. Josh It's just a ride. - Bill Hicks
God only gave orders to the Israelites, not anybody else. Since the establishment of an earthly kingdom would necessarily lead to these kinds of atrocities and wouldn't ensure faithfulness in Israel, God proposed a new covenant - and that one makes it clear God is the judge, not men. We can only claim citizenship of Israel in the sense that God permitted it, and that doesn't include legalism. That's why we can eat pork, why we can wear wool and cotton, and why we don't stone adulterers. What we inherited was the faith they fought for. That fight has been won, to still kill people for it is to "trample the Son of God underfoot" (Heb.10:30). The crusades were not God's will, killing babies or anybody to "send them to heaven" is not God's will. Romans 12 18If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay,"[Heb.10:30; Deut. 32:35] says the Lord. 20On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head."
Tell you what KalvinB- since I have such a hard time comprehending "even the most basic of concepts" we can declare our little debate done. I'm sorry but someone telling me how to go about doing so just doesn't seem to set well with me- and I'm sure it doesn't help the fact that it is 2:30 am and can't sleep Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Jenyar, Thought you might find this link interesting regarding old vs nt- Just food for thought: http://freethought.mbdojo.com/butthatstheoldtest.html
I appreciate the thought, but it's obvious this person doesn't have a clear idea why we say things have changed. The difference isn't between the Old and the New Testament - the New Testament is unlike the Old in that it describes a change. How many epistles, parables, and gospels are there in the Hebrew Bible? How many prophesies (comparably) are there in the New Testament? Clearly something has changed. The world that was long expected in the Old Testament has literally arrived in the NT. What happened is that God instituted His new covenant, and it's crucial to realize what that means. Underestimating the difference Jesus came to make, and did make, is to miss the reason for being a Christian in the first place. The difference is visible in the way we worship God, as the author admits, but he says the laws and permissions should still be the same "because Christians don't believe in moral relativism". This is esentially the argument JustARide and I have been having. But compare the following verses: God: Malachi 2:16 "I hate divorce," says the LORD God of Israel, "and I hate a man's covering himself with violence as well as with his garment," says the LORD Almighty. Moses: Deuteronomy 24 1 If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, 2 and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, 3 and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, 4 then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again... Jesus: Matt.19 8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." There is obviously a different approach in each of them, but they all come down to the sin of adultery - the law forbidding divorce was a concession, but the moral law hasn't changed. The significance is this: the message of the Bible overrides the authority of the Mosaic law, even though it's also contained in the Bible. The New covenant actually tightened the noose, but Jesus stepped in to take the punishment. God as judge is the only authority who can do this, and Christians have inherited this authority through Christ. He told us why divorce is wrong, why it condemns us, and why we need to confess it as a sin to Him - that means sacrificing it to Him and not doing it anymore. We don't stone adulterers anymore because we have been shown to be adulterers ourselves - that doesn't mean we now condone it, it means we have been forgiven for it. The law has instead been placed in our hearts and now accuses us from the inside. Only with God's Spirit is it possible to uphold these laws without enforcing them to the letter, because God has enforced and fulfilled them already. Without God, these sins are going unpunished for the time being. Meanwhile, here is some food for thought to you: http://www.carm.org/doctrine/covenant.htm
Jenyar - first of all, thanks for providing actual quotes to support your argument. It's refreshing. Your interpretation may indeed lead you to the conclusion that God only ordered killings for a select period of history, using a select people to achieve those goals. Sadly, it seems your interpretation of scripture has not been entirely accepted, as evidenced by the continuing religious strife in the world. I wish more people agreed with you. My problems remain as follows... 1. Whether you believe God ordered killings for only a small time in history or that he continues to order them today, it's fairly difficult to deny that that belief alone has led to great bloodshed throughout history. If God himself had never introduced the idea in the first place, at least we could be sure that none of the violence being perpetrated in his name was truly warranted. After one takes the leap and affirms that God is capable and, in fact, has already ordered slaughters, it tends to make the entire notion far more palatable, would you agree? 2. I'm still curious as to why God did not carry out the death sentences himself (as he had shown the ability to do), but instead ordered earthly armies to do his bidding. Surely, he knew this would only lead to more violence, with more and more leaders crying, "God told me to kill you." 3. Again, by limiting the killings to certain points within the Old Testament and thereby making the very idea off-limits to research or discussion, the Bible is, essentially, covering its own ass. The killings probably had to be cordoned off in history because, had they been allowed to continue, A) the entire world might look like the Middle East, B) People might grow suspicious as to the motives of the righteous killers (as they should have been in the first place), and C) If people were still making those claims today (as some wackjobs still do), people might realize how full of shit they are. God is an unchanging rock, the same "yesterday, today, and forever," but yet he decided to radically shift his tactics roughly 2000 years ago? Bottom line: belief in a God who has, even at any time in history, ordered killings increases the likelihood of more violence. Again, I don't see many Taoists claiming the Tao told them to go bomb innocent people. If the Tao Te Ching had included the line, "And the Tao ordered the king to smite his enemies with great force," they might have some basis for a belief in Tao-sanctioned violence, would they not? People can still point to one atrocity and say, "God did not inspire that," then point to another and say, "God might have inspired that." It's all a crapshoot as far as I can tell. Josh It's just a ride. - Bill Hicks
