*Let's assume the Christian god is real*
This is mostly about the Old Testament where many rules (the 10 Commandments for instance) are listed. If god so rarely follows his own rules and often switches character traits, why should we follow anything he says? Wouldn't his lack of consistency make him rather pathetic as a supreme leader?
Also, why should we follow something even if we find it immoral? Why is harming other humans in the name of god justified? Or, why is god allowed to get away with killing, harming, or ignoring us, yet whenever something good happens, he gets all the credit?
If god doesn't follow his own rules, why should we?
Moderator: Moderators
- Princess Luna On The Moon
- Apprentice
- Posts: 162
- Joined: Tue May 13, 2014 9:32 pm
- Location: New Canterlot, Canterlot, Equestrian Empire
- ttruscott
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 11064
- Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:09 pm
- Location: West Coast of Canada
- Been thanked: 3 times
Post #121
HE used a natural occurrence as an intervention...why not. I swear HE does that a lot and Heb 12:5-11 is filled with such occurrences as painful disciplines designed to be rehabilitative.bluethread wrote:why can't this be both an intervention and a natural occurrence. It appears that you are attempting to make a distinction for the sake of your point.
PCE Theology as I see it...
We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.
This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.
We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.
This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.
- ttruscott
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 11064
- Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:09 pm
- Location: West Coast of Canada
- Been thanked: 3 times
Post #122
Argument from silence: An argument from silence is an informal fallacy that occurs when someone interprets someone's or something's silence as anything other than silence, typically claiming that the silence was in fact communicating agreement or disagreement.twobitsworth wrote: Abraham is another example of human sacrifice. I am well aware that God backed down at the last moment, and the story is horrific, but the key thing to notice is that Abe was not shocked. he was not surprised that a human sacrifice was requested by God.
You have no idea what he was thinking or feeling but made up that which suits your anti-Christian pov.
PCE Theology as I see it...
We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.
This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.
We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.
This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.
- ttruscott
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 11064
- Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:09 pm
- Location: West Coast of Canada
- Been thanked: 3 times
Post #123
But not everyone is brought into congruity with the hot pan nor gets the thought to touch it... Was David killing Goliath with a stone a 'natural occurrence' or a judgment against Goliath and his country to prove: 1 Sam. 17:47 All those gathered here will know that it is not by sword or spear that the Lord saves; for the battle is the Lord’s, and he will give all of you into our hands.� ??twobitsworth wrote:Yes. They are not really comparable. We have no reason to believe that God is punishing the person for touching the pan--it a natural law of physics and applies to every person equally.You are changing my point. Is there a huge difference between getting burned by touchng a hot pan and being punished with a burnt hand for touching a forbidden pan, which may very well have been hot?
PCE Theology as I see it...
We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.
This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.
We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.
This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.
-
- Student
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:25 am
Post #124
I would agree that an argument from silence, in the absence of any other evidence, is a fallacy. I would disagree that communicating by silence is always a fallacy.Argument from silence: An argument from silence is an informal fallacy that occurs when someone interprets someone's or something's silence as anything other than silence, typically claiming that the silence was in fact communicating agreement or disagreement.
You have no idea what he was thinking or feeling but made up that which suits your anti-Christian pov.
There is an elephant in the room, evidence wise, to prove the consent of Abe and his lack of shock/refusal. Upon hearing God's request, Abe began to follow through on it. It is appalling to me to consider that a person would be asked to murder an innocent child....but we can infer that for Abe, he did not feel that way. he did not rail against God. He did not outright refuse, as you and I would. He did not shout to God what you and I would that "you can punish me any way you like for refusing, but I will never, ever, consent to murdering my innocent child. Apparently Abe enjoyed free will, and the options were available to him. We can assuredly claim by Abe's silence on such a disgusting act, that he was OK with it, and was not shocked to hear the request for a human sacrifice.
That is one reason I ask the question about human sacrifice. is God OK with it or is he opposed to it?? Surely something as important as this would be made clear in god's word?
- ttruscott
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 11064
- Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:09 pm
- Location: West Coast of Canada
- Been thanked: 3 times
Post #125
Clear enough for anyone with google:twobitsworth wrote:That is one reason I ask the question about human sacrifice. is God OK with it or is he opposed to it?? Surely something as important as this would be made clear in god's word?
Deuteronomy 18:10 There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer... and many other verses tell of YHWH's animosity to human sacrifice such as Leviticus 18:21 You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the Lord.
PCE Theology as I see it...
We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.
This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.
We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.
This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.
-
Online
- Savant
- Posts: 9858
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
- Location: Planet Earth
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 266 times
Post #126
I know, I am saying your point does not apply because the episode in question is clearly not a natural consequence but an artificial punishment.bluethread wrote: You are changing my point.
Yes, clearly. Are you suggesting there is not a huge difference?Is there a huge difference between getting burned by touchng a hot pan and being punished with a burnt hand for touching a forbidden pan, which may very well have been hot?
Granted. That's the stance of all atheists.You are creating a false dichotomy. If one does not believe that Adonai intervenes in the affairs of men, then why not just make the argument that Adonai had nothing to do with it.
It can be both, it just isn't in this case because the Bible says so.However, if one does believe that Adonai intervenes in the affairs of men, why can't this be both an intervention and a natural occurrence.
It says right there in the Bible: "the Lord’s anger burned against Uzzah, and he struck him down because he had put his hand on the ark. So he died there before God." No assumption on my part.It appears that you are attempting to make a distinction for the sake of your point. That as I said, is a case of assuming the conclusion.
And that justify not sending a goat and letting the daughter die, how?Because it was presumptuous. Avraham was commanded to do what he did, Jephthah was not.
-
- Student
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:25 am
Post #127
Ttruscott,
I looked up your passage, and have quoted it in context below.
9 When thou art come into the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations.
10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch.
11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.
12 For all that do these things are an abomination unto the Lord: and because of these abominations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee.
Deuteronomy is full of this sort of admonition. God was obsessed with Israelis leaving him and following other Gods and other traditions. In the passage you quoted God is once again admonishing the people, not to follow Molech and the sacrifices required by that God. He was not laying out a command for the Israelis in following him, the True God.
If he was, you would have found a contradiction. As it is, God's command to kill Abrahams' son as a human sacrifice is not contradicted. Remember the bible also says each is judged on what is in the heart, not the actual action fulfilled. That is why lusting after a woman is no different that sex with her. Asking a person to kill and innocent child as a sacrifice, is no different than actually performing it.
I looked up your passage, and have quoted it in context below.
9 When thou art come into the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations.
10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch.
11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.
12 For all that do these things are an abomination unto the Lord: and because of these abominations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee.
Deuteronomy is full of this sort of admonition. God was obsessed with Israelis leaving him and following other Gods and other traditions. In the passage you quoted God is once again admonishing the people, not to follow Molech and the sacrifices required by that God. He was not laying out a command for the Israelis in following him, the True God.
If he was, you would have found a contradiction. As it is, God's command to kill Abrahams' son as a human sacrifice is not contradicted. Remember the bible also says each is judged on what is in the heart, not the actual action fulfilled. That is why lusting after a woman is no different that sex with her. Asking a person to kill and innocent child as a sacrifice, is no different than actually performing it.
- ttruscott
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 11064
- Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:09 pm
- Location: West Coast of Canada
- Been thanked: 3 times
Post #128
Of course it was, Gen 22:12!twobitsworth wrote: As it is, God's command to kill Abrahams' son as a human sacrifice is not contradicted.
To lust after a woman in your heart is adultery because you are indeed practicing adultery with her in your mind. To hate someone so strongly you dwell on murdering him is to be guilty of murder because you are indeed practicing murder in your mind.Remember the bible also says each is judged on what is in the heart, not the actual action fulfilled. That is why lusting after a woman is no different that sex with her. Asking a person to kill and innocent child as a sacrifice, is no different than actually performing it.
In Gen 22 it is obvious from verse 12 that GOD had no intent in the least for Isaac to die, only that Abraham reveal his heart to himself and to us so we may know why he was so greatly blessed. YHWH did not dwell in HIS mind about Isaac's death nor replay it over and over - HE did not intend Isaac to die at all! There is absolutely no parallel to holding sin in your heart making you guilty even though you never get to act upon it.
Sometimes it seems like you haven't even read the stories you use at all but have only read about them in a list called "10 hard questions Christians can't answer..." or somewhere.
PCE Theology as I see it...
We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.
This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.
We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.
This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.
-
- Student
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:25 am
Post #129
Did God command Abraham to break the law when he commanded he sacrifice his innocent child?
- ttruscott
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 11064
- Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 5:09 pm
- Location: West Coast of Canada
- Been thanked: 3 times
Post #130
What law? What law was Abraham under?twobitsworth wrote: Did God command Abraham to break the law when he commanded he sacrifice his innocent child?
PCE Theology as I see it...
We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.
This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.
We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth.
This theology debunks the need to base Christianity upon the blasphemy of creating us in Adam's sin.