Thanks RandomGuy.
You see this Razon?
You might quibble with the inconsistency, but answer this:
Why did God let Jepthah carry through?
Why did God not stop him?
Did God in this case approve of human sacrifice?
Thanks RandomGuy.
You see this Razon?
What does one find when one looks just beyond the surface then?
Does God then condone slaughtering non-believers?
God in the old testament pretty consistantly says that the penalty for conversion or denial of his existance should be death.DT13:13 Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known;
DT13:14 Then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you;
DT13:15 Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword.
DT13:16 And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, for the LORD thy God: and it shall be an heap for ever; it shall not be built again.
DT13:17 And there shall cleave nought of the cursed thing to thine hand: that the LORD may turn from the fierceness of his anger, and shew thee mercy, and have compassion upon thee, and multiply thee, as he hath sworn unto thy fathers;
DT13:18 When thou shalt hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep all his commandments which I command thee this day, to do that which is right in the eyes of the LORD thy God.
All sorts of things get you the death penalty:
It doesn't take much digging, and it isn't cherry picking one thing here or there. The message about non-belief seems plain.ZEC13:3 And it shall come to pass, that when any shall yet prophesy, then his father and his mother that begat him shall say unto him, Thou shalt not live; for thou speakest lies in the name of the LORD: and his father and his mother that begat him shall thrust him through when he prophesieth.
That bit is drawn directly from one of mouse's favorite gifs, that he seems to think supports his "we evolved from snails" factual mistake.
The "family" structure there is pretty much the same picture as the modern understanding of how life evolved.
It all gets distilled and looks a lot like family trees.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evoluti...istory_of_life
I tend to use the Bible portal:
http://bibleportal.christianpost.com/
Good search functions, multiple versions.
Most of the ire with evolution seems to be anthropocentric pride and emotional more than analytical.
That being said i would like Christianity a lot better if they got rid of all of Paul's bull .
Sure!
Whats the bottom line? What if no little creatures had left the ocean, now what?
EraCenozoicMesozoicPaleozoicPeriodQuaternary First Humans3 to 0 Million Years Ago. From the Ice Age to the Appearance of the first human beings.
Cretaceous Dinosaur
Birds
Mammals144 to 65 Million Years ago. Last part Of the age of Dinosaurs
Carboniferous Amphibians
Early Reptiles360 to 248 million years ago. Appearance of the first reptiles (laying their eggs on land).
Tertiary Dinosaur Extinction65 to 3 Million Years Ago. Dinosaurs inexplicably become extinct and mammals and birds become the dominant species.
Jurassic Dinosaurs
Birds
Mammals206 to 144 Million Years ago. This is the high point of the dinosaur age, there are a great number of species including giant plant eaters. Appearance of the first feathered birds.
Devonian Amphibians
Fish408 to 360 Million Years Ago. Appearance of the first amphibious creatures.
Triassic Dinosaurs
Mammals248 to 206 Million Years Ago. Appearance of the The first dinosaurs and the first mammals.
Silurian Fish438 to 408 Million Years Ago. Plants begin to cover the land.
Ordovician Marine Invertebrates
Fish505 to 438 Million Years Ago. The Oceans are teeming with invertebrate life. Appearance of he first true fish.
Cambrian Marine Invertebrates570 to 505 Million Years Ago. Appearance of the first marine invertebrates.
Christianity would still have some rather fatal logical flaws, even so. I don't have time to get really into it, at the moment.
Let's just say that apologetics have their hands full, and I am not talking about my paltry posts here, but about more basic, fundamental ontological flaws.
Then it is certain there would be no tool-using intelligent life forms. Whales, dolphins, octopi.
Intelligence, but no civilization. Civilization takes tools, and tools take fire, something of a problem for dolphins.
(edit)
The thing is though, that there is a huge evolutionary incentive to get onto land. If an aquatic organism can do it, and other water creatures can't, that is a huge new geography to spread without compe ion.
Oh i get that. Virgin births, zombies, heaven for contrition no matter what, and whatnot but even then that was John, Matt, et al making a lot of those claims.
I just find Paul to be the most reprehensible.
I quibbled because I was addressing the original charge of inconsistency.
For this particular instance, I think because it was more important for Jepthah to carry through on his promise.
I'd say you can see a lot of things by looking past the surface.
For example, I'm reading what you're saying and I think that besides your (fair and logical imo) objections, your main contention with the Christian God is morality. I'm sure there's a more technical name for the process but I pick things like that up. That's really what I meant there.
First of all, I think you're arguing from the "God is love" paradigm. I can't argue on behalf of that approach because I take a "God is the most powerful being in the universe" line of thinking. (There's a reason why other Christians and I tend to disagree on lots of points ).
While he definitely does show support, mercy, and care for the people aligned with his goals, I find him pretty cool towards those that aren't even if he does extend grace to all people. Hence, the whole "if you're not a friend of God you're an enemy" sentiment that can be seen throughout both the Old and New Testament. It's reiterated over and over again that the consequences of not being on God's side is death. To me, those statements you listed off are an extension of that.
Jesus was sent over in the spirit of fairness (the justice side of God) and free will does allow people to make a choice. There's nothing to stop people from leaving the faith, denying, and sinning if they like, those are decisions they can make. The result is just death.
It goes back to what I said earlier about small wrongs by a finite being against an infinite being being only payable through death. In the Old Testament people/animals had to die physically to cover for those wrongs. Jesus by being perfect and dying was able to fix that although it's still up to the individual to accept their only means of escape.
In a lot of Christianity today, however, I'd argue that the cult of the individual really overlooks some of these points by emphasizing the rainbows and good feelings side and completely neglecting the grittier side.
Although God does embody love to a degree that most of us can't imagine, I don't think that's his main quality. It just goes back to the fact that he's infinite. You can disagree with the whole thing (and obviously you do) but I was originally arguing against the premise that Christianity doesn't make sense/lacks consistency overall.
Definitely a few s in the armour and likely some flaws I've overlooked here but I think it's disingenuous to suggest there's no rhyme or reason behind the beliefs that Christians hold.
Note:
Kind of long and I'm starting to ramble but I think I've covered the main points. I'm in a hurry here though so I can't stay back and edit. Just say something if I'm not making sense here.
Last edited by TheSkeptic; 04-10-2012 at 07:42 PM.
I keep bringing it out becase it hasn't sunk in yet in your very limited mind the point I try to make. So here goes again for the #198th time....
Scientist claim the earth was formed 4 billion years ago after two billion years the earth cooled down and in the huge pools of liquid very small oranizums swimming in these pools formed into various life forms one being a snail < IMPORTANT
Now put down the bing for 90 seconds and remember if snails were one of the first life forms to "Evolve" from this pool of liquid then....>IMPORTANT> any life form from that point on is a result from that very "Snail" including you your your cousin vinny and your very annoing ignorant stepson redzero.
Last edited by mouse; 04-11-2012 at 03:18 AM.
Last edited by mouse; 04-11-2012 at 12:13 AM.
Why do people get into extended discussions with a guy who has 1000 troll names and think they are going to achieve something?
I'm a happy haplorini, tyvm.
So now you shift the conversation to how many screen names a person has to avoid the subject?
What does it matter if I, or Aunt Jemima proves you wrong your still wrong.
This is a very desperate and Frankly pathetic move on your part especially since you have over 16,000 post you should not still be asking such meaningless questions.
mouse still acting like he wants to have serious conversations. I still want to know why gravity isn't a religion.
You are such an idiot.
Looks like you dropped the pretense of wanting a civil conversation. I still want to know why gravity isn't a religion.
This chart you've posted ad nauseum doesn't imply that humans come from snails. You're the only one that is insisting that evolution means we must have come from snails.
You're a lazy idiot.
I never thought Blake would stoop down to to Red zero's way of expressing ones self.
I knew the small brains in this topic couldn't comprehend what Science teaches and many of you all find it frustrating I am using your own Science books to expose your silly theories.
keep the insults coming I want many at ST to see who the weak minded wannabee debaters are around here.
Is there anyone still left here at ST that is mentally above the age of 16?
Because only idiots like yourself would think that gravity should be a religion.
You're too lazy, stupid, and too concerned with insults (yours included) to expose anything.
I've tried explaining this very difference to the agnostic/athiest folks in here before... i.e. the differences in GOD's interaction with humanity on account of the Covenants at play. In other words, GOD's Old Covenant "behavior" is not nearly as gracious as HIS New Covenant "behavior" simply because Jesus' atonement for us, HIS redemptive act for us, HIS sanctifying act for us, had not occured before the New Covenant was extended by Jesus. Furthermore that the Old Covenant was extended only to the descendants of Abraham, whereas the New Covenant is extended to all and any who would accept it... and that yes, that is a choice we ultimately have to make...
But don't even bother trying to explain that further, because these folks think they have it all figured out... they simply don't care to truly understand. They're derisive, arrogant and beligerent all wrapped up with bitterness and scorn. They love, absolutely LOVE, mocking GOD and HIS believers. They get a rise out of it, simply to pat themselves on the back and to continue justifying their own disbelief... This is one of those subjects I no longer care to discuss with them (I'd rather chat about the Spurs or Soccer, or the latest movie, technology, etc...)... but just for your sake, don't waste your time either...
lol creationist
I didn't realize that I was arguing that gravity should be a religion. Link?
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)