A Question Unanswered, When in Church...

[POI]

During the last year or so of attending church, I was still reluctant to ask probing questions for fear of 'rocking the boat'. In the back of each chair were suggestion/question cards, which anyone could fill out and turn in... I asked the same question, about a dozen times, and never received any type of response.

For debate:

Why would an all knowing and all loving God ever place favor towards one specific race, the Jews?

[Clownboat]

I think you know you got caught out.
Peace again.

Let's test this claim.

I note that in every one of your posts, you do make this claim. Due to you making this claim in each of your posts, I informed POI to make sure he was aware of the claim you make in each of your posts. (Please note who the person is that is making the claim that you are a slave).

Copy/paste:
Just a warning POI. See Tam's signature line:
your servant and a slave of Christ,

slave
noun
a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.

So the test Tam, are you truly a slave of this Christ as you claim you are? If so, my warning to POI is apt. It is you that is noting your forced obedience by claiming to be a slave.

Imagine if I claimed to have a faulty memory or to be a dishonest person in each of my posts. If you pointed such things out, it would be you noting me ad homening myself as it is my own claims that weaken my own arguments.

Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it.

You attack yourself by claiming to be a slave. I do not claim that you are a slave, but I note what a slave is and how it is forced to act. If you truly view yourself as a slave to this Christ, pointing out what that means is apt and not an attack on you.

Perhaps 'slave' is not the word you should be using, but if you feel it is apt, then stick with it, but do own up to it please and what the meaning of that word is.

Claiming to be a slave when in a church setting may be well received in said setting.
Claiming to be a KKK member at a KKK rally may also be well received in said setting.
Claiming to be a KKK member on a debate forum like this one is probably not wise. Consider your use of being a 'slave' here and how others will read such a word. Imagine how an actual slave would react to you thinking you are a slave. Imagine closing on your home in the morning and you have yet to close on your new home come lunch. You could claim to be homeless, but what would an actual homeless person think of you? Would it not weaken what it means to be truly homeless? Consider your claims here of being a slave in this light, or just continue to pretend I'm attacking you and not a position of yours.

[tam]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #141]

Clownboat, if you have anything to add on the topic of the thread, or on any of my comments related to the topic of the thread, then I will respond (if need be). Otherwise, my previous response to you stands here:

viewtopic.php?p=1098211#p1098211


Peace still to you.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

Well, this is just repetitive so unless something new comes up after this post, I will not be responding.

It has been explained to you many times in this thread that this was not an arbitrary reason. You may choose to ignore or reject that, but that does not change the fact.

The given 'explanation(s)' are irrelevant. I've explained why.

Because that is not how you think a creator would work. That is what is irrelevant. You can think and believe whatever seems best to you of course, but it is irrelevant as to how said Creator would work.

God is not bound by accidental properties.

Well, in some cases, He does place favor, based upon "accidental properties."

Honoring a promise made to Abraham is not an 'accidental property'.

Offering a covenant with a people (due to the promise and covenant made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) is not an 'accidental property'. Having a covenant with a people who agreed to it is not accidental property.

Your question actually comes down to the following two choices: God exists or God does not exist.

Because if God exists, then honoring a covenant and keeping His word is something a God of love would DO, yes?

If God does not exist, then obviously "b" is the answer.

I disagree. It's not necessary about if a God exists... All it demonstrates is that the 'Israelites" 'created' a god, using their own human like traits.

And you come to this conclusion based solely on the fact that God had a covenant with Israel, therefore Israel must have 'created' God.


Even though clearly people other than Israel (and Abraham) worshiped and/or served this same God. Melchizedek for example. (who was a contemporary of Abraham) Not to mention whichever people and land Abraham was called OUT OF (who had to have served God at one point, but had gone the way of most nations in taking up practices that are abhorrent to God.)



Peace again to you.

You skipped some pertinent stuff here.

The 'stuff' I skipped seems to boil down to 'people lie about God, therefore, everything said about God is a lie.'

That is not a logical position to take.

Let's try a different approach.

This thread has NOTHING to do with whether or not God keeps a promise.

Actually it does. Unfortunately for this thread, that takes away the 'accidental property' suggestion.

It instead has to do with WHAT criteria is used, for which God bases promises.

Such as faith... (because of his FAITH, Abraham saved his entire household; because of his faith and love for God, God made a covenant with him and a promise for his entire household.)

In the case mentioned, (Lev. 25:46), His criteria was that they are of a particular bloodline --- as I provided a link in the previous response.

No, it is because they (Israelites) belonged to God. They are HIS servants.

See verse 42, 55 same chapter.

The given verse speaks nothing about anything other than them being Israelites. Hence, you have to invent alternative reason(s).

See above. Nothing has been invented. Verses 42 and 55 are in the very same chapter as verse 46.

In other cases, God places favor for one tribe to completely destroy another. We humans are limited by these types of tactics. God, apparently, is not limited in this way. God would/could merely zap away individuals, and keep the ones deemed worthy.

And if no one is worthy? What a joyous world that would be for people to live in... fear at any moment they might get zapped. Or their loved ones... ZAP...ZAP.. ZAP.

Kind of "zeus-y" isn't it?

So when a 'god-favored' tribe is told to completely destroy another, it's highly unlikely all of them are pure 'evil'. It's just like when country goes to war with other country. We have to destroy large areas, and cause "collateral damage", because we are limited. God telling one tribe to completely destroy another, would be unnecessary, being that small children are innocent. Thus, the apologist will just argue that they would have later grown up to be 'evil'.

This is an understandable question, though it appears to be a completely different topic (has nothing to do with WHAT criteria is used, for God to make His promises).

Based on those promises (criteria given throughout the thread) God can certainly protect His own people (as He did with Pharaoh's army, fighting on behalf of Israel). God can also keep a protective hedge around His people (only when that hedge was removed were her enemies permitted to come in and defeat her... such as the Assyrian conquest and the Babylonian conquest). God can also show His power and defeat an enemy such as the fall of the wall of Jericho... that city was already defeated (God did that without any need for casualties from either side). Destroying all the people in it may have been more about Israel desiring war or misunderstanding what God desires, rather than about God desiring war. Or maybe for some stubborn nutty reason, the people still fought against Israel after that demonstration.


Regardless, Israel did not always do or even know what God desired (you would think that if Israel had invented God, God would have always approved of their actions rather than rebuking them). Israel also did not always do or know what was true. Allowances were made for them at times, even according to the law - which was merely a tutor leading to Christ (and allowances might have been needed in some things due to the nature of the world then... it is hard - at least for me - to comment on a time and place without being there). That is one of the reasons we have Christ: so that we can look to Him to know and see God as God truly is; so we can know what God truly desires and what God is truly like.


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #141]

Clownboat, if you have anything to add on the topic of the thread, or on any of my comments related to the topic of the thread, then I will respond (if need be). Otherwise, my previous response to you stands here:

viewtopic.php?p=1098211#p1098211


Peace still to you.

Every human that has ever suffered from actual slavery would appreciate that you did not include being a slave to Christ in this reply.
Seriously! Good on you and be well!

[Clownboat]

Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

My neigbors dog got in to my back yard. It wasn't that big of a deal, so I don't understand what Ukranians are all upset about.
Peace again to you,
your forum member that has been invaded by another.

[POI]

The 'stuff' I skipped seems to boil down to 'people lie about God, therefore, everything said about God is a lie.'

That is not a logical position to take.

That is not my position. Many feel God communicates with them, whether they are Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc etc etc. They are not lying. They are likely mistaken. In this case, the Israelites think they are special, and this all-creating and all-loving God made a special pact with them. And why, well, as you continue to demonstrate below, because they are Israelites --> (accidental properties),

Actually it does. Unfortunately for this thread, that takes away the 'accidental property' suggestion.

Negative... The point of this thread is to demonstrate that God places favor to people based upon 'accidental properties'. If it was the Chinese, I would point that out too.

Such as faith... (because of his FAITH, Abraham saved his entire household; because of his faith and love for God, God made a covenant with him and a promise for his entire household.)

I thought we already covered this, many responses ago.... If you are to argue 'covenant' based theology, it would be on a case-by-case bases. Between each individual and God. Not, instead to ask that your family be saved, and receive what you ask because God deems you worthy of being saved... This would mean anyone "faithful" can ask God to save their family/other, and these saved people are no longer accountable for their own actions. They are instead saved because a faithful person asked, and also because of 'accidental properties' --> their bloodline.

No, it is because they (Israelites) belonged to God. They are HIS servants.

See verse 42, 55 same chapter.

Your response is quite suspect... If you admit that not all believers were Israelites, this would mean others were faithful as well. So why mention Israelites as the criteria for being saved?

Instead of saying...

"Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves."

He could have commanded:

"Save anyone who is faithful"

If these rescuers save people, merely based upon 'accidental properties', it's safe to say some of them were not truly faithful. But were saved anyways, because of "accidental properties." And further, that some of the faithful, were not saved, merely based upon an accidental property.

(Tam) And if no one is worthy? What a joyous world that would be for people to live in... fear at any moment they might get zapped. Or their loved ones... ZAP...ZAP.. ZAP.

Kind of "zeus-y" isn't it?

(POI) No, what IS "joyous", is what happened to many, as described in the Bible. Execute all, even the newborns. And in some cases, keep the virgins for yourselves.

Like I keep pointing out... All think their god is on their side. They likely mistake their own thoughts, with that of a "god's" thoughts. It's not lying, it's instead being misinformed. "God really wants us to destroy this entire tribe, they are all evil."

So yea, if you are truly evil, why not get zapped? Not instead have your children also be slaughtered, and your pretty daughters taken as sex slaved, because you are deemed 'evil'. These are 'accidental properties.'

(Tam) Israel did not always do or even know what God desired (you would think that if Israel had invented God, God would have always approved of their actions rather than rebuking them). Israel also did not always do or know what was true. Allowances were made for them at times, even according to the law - which was merely a tutor leading to Christ (and allowances might have been needed in some things due to the nature of the world then... it is hard - at least for me - to comment on a time and place without being there). That is one of the reasons we have Christ: so that we can look to Him to know and see God as God truly is; so we can know what God truly desires and what God is truly like.

(POI) See above...

[POI]

Sorry, I didn't find any scripture that supports your claim. Maybe you could show direct quote from the Bible that says: "special favor to Israelites, for the mere fact they are Israelites"?

Sure, no problem....

"but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly." - Lev. 25:46

That does not say the reason why so.

Maybe it's best if you simply follow along with the exchange between Tam and myself....

[tam]

Peace to you,

The 'stuff' I skipped seems to boil down to 'people lie about God, therefore, everything said about God is a lie.'

That is not a logical position to take.

That is not my position. Many feel God communicates with them, whether they are Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc etc etc. They are not lying. They are likely mistaken.

The same reasoning is applied. "Many** people mistakenly believe God communicates with them, therefore, everyone who believes this is mistaken."

**in my experience it is not that many; many turn to a religion or to men and listen to it/them.

The rest is repetitive. So I will just refer back to previous posts regarding 'accidental properties' (and the like) as I am sure you will do as well.

No, it is because they (Israelites) belonged to God. They are HIS servants.

See verse 42, 55 same chapter.

Your response is quite suspect...

It is the exact reason given in the very book and chapter that you are referring TO.


**


I'm not sure how your final 'see above' addressed anything I said here:

Israel did not always do or even know what God desired (you would think that if Israel had invented God, God would have always approved of their actions rather than rebuking them). Israel also did not always do or know what was true. Allowances were made for them at times, even according to the law - which was merely a tutor leading to Christ (and allowances might have been needed in some things due to the nature of the world then... it is hard - at least for me - to comment on a time and place without being there). That is one of the reasons we have Christ: so that we can look to Him to know and see God as God truly is; so we can know what God truly desires and what God is truly like.



The point I was addressing was a bit off topic, so my response is as well. I understand if you do not wish to go off on that tangent.


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[POI]

The same reasoning is applied. "Many** people mistakenly believe God communicates with them, therefore, everyone who believes this is mistaken."

**in my experience it is not that many; many turn to a religion or to men and listen to it/them.

Allow me to correct you further...

In the case for the OT, it's more likely than not, that these folks are mistaken. As stated, numerous times, an all-creating and all-loving God would not logically make pacts, based upon what was written in the OT. Hence, it's logical/reasonable to dismiss such story-lines as people who have mistaken their own thoughts, with what such a God would communicate --- (if this god is also deemed all-loving, all-knowing, and all-creating). But if this god has no better foresight than any bronze-aged human, then yea, maybe it was

The rest is repetitive. So I will just refer back to previous posts regarding 'accidental properties' (and the like) as I am sure you will do as well.

I disagree. For you, the rest is inconvenient. So I then refer you back to all the stuff you did not address in my last response.

I'm not sure how your final 'see above' addressed anything I said here:

1) Israel did not always do or even know what God desired (you would think that if Israel had invented God, God would have always approved of their actions rather than rebuking them). Israel also did not always do or know what was true. 2) Allowances were made for them at times, even according to the law - which was merely a tutor leading to Christ (and allowances might have been needed in some things due to the nature of the world then... it is hard - at least for me - to comment on a time and place without being there). 3) That is one of the reasons we have Christ: so that we can look to Him to know and see God as God truly is; so we can know what God truly desires and what God is truly like.

Allow me to vet this out....

1) So you admit god was not the one to tell them to slaughter all, and/or take virgin sex slaves?

2) How is this not an "accidental property"?

3) This is nothing but making excuses, for what looks to be a clumsy god. If God was not communicating well in the OT, why ASSUME his communication is any better in the NT?.?.?.?.

[tam]

Peace to you,

The same reasoning is applied. "Many** people mistakenly believe God communicates with them, therefore, everyone who believes this is mistaken."

**in my experience it is not that many; many turn to a religion or to men and listen to it/them.

Allow me to correct you further...

In the case for the OT, it's more likely than not, that these folks are mistaken. As stated, numerous times, an all-creating and all-loving God would not logically make pacts, based upon what was written in the OT.

POI, no matter how many times you state it, you are just stating your opinion.


If you love someone, you also care for those they love. As explained earlier (here or elsewhere, I forget now), God saves entire households.

Hence, it's logical/reasonable to dismiss such story-lines as people who have mistaken their own thoughts, with what such a God would communicate --- (if this god is also deemed all-loving, all-knowing, and all-creating). But if this god has no better foresight than any bronze-aged human, then yea, maybe it was

See, the all-knowing part here gets you. Because an all-knowing God knows how this all turns out; knows exactly what is needed. He would know then, that all Israel will turn and repent, say of Christ, "Blessed is He who comes in the name of [the LORD]", and be saved.

There are also some who reign as king-priests in the Kingdom with Christ for a thousand years; and some who enter the Kingdom as subjects of that Kingdom. Those who reign as king-priests in the Kingdom with Christ for a thousand years are Christians (regardless of tribe, tongue, nation, people, gender, free, slave, etc). That offer was meant for the nation of Israel (based on the promise/covenant), but Israel (as a nation, though not all the people) rejected Christ. (Although 144 000 places from that nation is reserved from Israel because of the promise to Abraham, but those 144 000 acknowledge Christ and have faith in Him). Since that rejection, the invitation then opened up to anyone, to people from all tribes, nations, tongues.

So those who reign with Christ in His Kingdom as king-priests have both faith and love for Christ and God, and have been chosen by Christ. People are set into place 'just so'; as God and His Son know best. Not everyone will be chosen. (Indeed, many are called, few are chosen.) But many others enter into the Kingdom as subjects if that Kingdom, based upon the conditions set out in the parable of the sheep and goats parable; based on having the law (love) written naturally upon their hearts, as is made manifest by what they DO. And all Israel will be saved.

Faith and love are part and parcel here, and come with blessings.

The rest is repetitive. So I will just refer back to previous posts regarding 'accidental properties' (and the like) as I am sure you will do as well.

I disagree. For you, the rest is inconvenient.

Not at all.

I'm not sure how your final 'see above' addressed anything I said here:

1) Israel did not always do or even know what God desired (you would think that if Israel had invented God, God would have always approved of their actions rather than rebuking them). Israel also did not always do or know what was true. 2) Allowances were made for them at times, even according to the law - which was merely a tutor leading to Christ (and allowances might have been needed in some things due to the nature of the world then... it is hard - at least for me - to comment on a time and place without being there). 3) That is one of the reasons we have Christ: so that we can look to Him to know and see God as God truly is; so we can know what God truly desires and what God is truly like.

Allow me to vet this out....

1) So you admit god was not the one to tell them to slaughter all, and/or take virgin sex slaves?

I admit exactly what I said. ('virgin sex slave' is something you and others are assuming)

But here is a post from way back in 2015 that dealt partly with this subject (second half of the post I think):

viewtopic.php?p=725276#p725276

2) How is this not an "accidental property"?

How IS anything in [2] an 'accidental property'?

3) This is nothing but making excuses, for what looks to be a clumsy god. If God was not communicating well in the OT, why ASSUME his communication is any better in the NT?.?.?.?.

Nothing was wrong with God's communication. Something was wrong with men hardening their hearts so as not to hear (Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your heart as you did at...); and with the erring pen of the scribes that handled the law falsely. I'm not the person who claims that God must communicate to men through a book. The testimonies in that book state otherwise ("The Word of [the LORD] came to... so and so; "my sheep listen to my VOICE"; etc.)



I get how the OT can throw some off though. I had to set the OT (well, the bible itself) aside for a while, and just listen, because I could only see what was written through the 'glasses' that men had given me (and perhaps also my own biases). Only after turning to Christ, looking to Him, listening to Him (and His words), could I see the rest - such as the OT - more clearly. If something does not mesh with Christ (His words and example, including what He has taught me) or does not mesh with love (which God is)... then there is something wrong with what is written, or there is information that I am missing/do not understand. Nothing true can contradict Christ (the Truth); and anything that comes from God will be from love.

Nothing suggests that a person is going to be able to know God by knowing the OT. How many people 'know' the OT, but do not know God? MANY.

If we know Christ, then we know His Father as well.




Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy