Christian Forums ...Why?

[KCKID]

For a few weeks I've been 'lurking' on another Christian Forum wondering whether or not to sign up. Since I generally choose my battles to fight - those that I have an interest/knowledge in or, indeed, those that I may be quite passionate about - I DO have a habit of coming on pretty strong from the get-go. This, quite naturally, irks the 'oldies' of the forum somewhat that someone no one knows dares to jump in and rock the boat with barely a 'how-do-you-do'. I may very well feel the same about a new kid in town questioning something that we 'old timers' have already pretty well established. But, I hope not.

While I don't know if I should, or even that I'm allowed to, mention the forum by name, I DID sign up to it so that I could respond to a specific post that really annoyed me. The thread is about homosexuality/gay marriage (naturally) and is, as usual, a hot topic. I should have known better than to put in my nickel's worth because most of the posts on the 41 pages of debate (well, it's hardly a debate) are hostile to homosexuality because 'God sez that it's an abomination' and that's that! It was just like the lamb among the wolves scenerio and, as said, I should have known better. But, this one particular post by an 'old timer' and very popular with the other religious zealots made the claim: "The Lord finds homosexuality/gay marriage to be reprehensible." I just couldn't let that lie pass without some kind of recourse. So, I asked of the poster to either present the scripture that states that Jesus finds homosexuality/gay marriage to be reprehensible or retract the statement. I also said that I'd respect him for retracting the statement which would be the right thing for him to do since such a scripture does not exist and that I'd raise the issue no more. Well, all hell has broken loose by the poster in question and his band of like-minded forum buddies. I'm a stone's throw away from being banned (not that I really want to stick around anyway) simply because I asked for scripture to back the claim or a withdrawal of the statement. Obviously, I have the guy backed into a corner ...I know it and he knows it.

Question/s: Why would such a reasonable question from me cause such a furore among professed Christians on a Christian Forum? I wanted scripture or retraction. The insults that have been hurled at me are SO unreasonable that they border on frothing-at-the-mouth hysteria. Have any of you experienced anything similar from such a band of merry men who tend to follow the leader and will resort to and continue to perpetuate lies rather than be seen to be backing down? Why is it SO important for some Christians on Christian sites to hurl their hate message at homosexual people (or those they consider to be 'their supporters') that they refuse to even CONSIDER other alternatives or interpretations of the scriptures that they use to do so? What kind of mentality is taking place among Christians when the term 'debate' is seen to be a threat?

Obviously, I have my own theories but I'd be interested in input from the rest of you as I'm always anxious to learn something new.

[Goat]

Your thought might work except for the fact that it would God who gave the very meaning of morality and ethics. So no a special case is not needed here. I would interested to see what you deem as moral and then what you deem as a suitable punishment, if you think one should be punished, for immoral behavior.

What's not reasonable or logical to is to justify the actions of these groups of people. You have to do that in order to say they did not deserve punishment. Any argument beyond that is simply a personal opinion on what level of punishment they deserve. So the question becomes, are you justifying the actions of the groups above?

Why should that matter?? So, you think that God should follow the same standards he makes for someone else?? That sounds like , totally absurd. It is interesting the lengths someone will go to justify the acts attributed in God in the stories, but, well, it makes that whole 'moral and ethics comes from God' claim so very illogical.

You still didn't answer my question, so I'll ask it again. Are you justifying the actions of the groups that God judged? If not, then why is punishing them immoral or unethical?

No, I am judging the actions of the believers on how they change their ethics based on who is doing a specific action. It is not God I am judging, it is not the victims of the actions alleged that God did.. it is the way the believers justify the stories.

[PhiloKGB]

We are talking about godlike powers here, if I can change his mind about freeing the slaves, I can change his mind about going out and killing them. If I can spirit the slaves away, I can stop his army from finding them. There are any number of ways of avoiding any bloodshed given godlike powers.

That would violate free will to choose to believe in God.

What does any of that have to do with choosing to believe in God?

There are also any number of ways of avoiding it if he had simply listened to Gods messenger.

Ah yes, shift the blame back to the fallible human who has a severely limited set of choosable actions in the hopes we'll forget that the infallible deity can do literally anything conceivable to defuse the situation.

[charles_hamm]

Maybe, maybe not. If Pharaoh saw the Jews as a threat then what's to say he would not look for them and try to kill all of them.

We are talking about godlike powers here, if I can change his mind about freeing the slaves, I can change his mind about going out and killing them. If I can spirit the slaves away, I can stop his army from finding them. There are any number of ways of avoiding any bloodshed given godlike powers.

That would violate free will to choose to believe in God. There are also any number of ways of avoiding it if he had simply listened to Gods messenger.

Let me see, violate a mans free will or slaughter innocents? Easy..........slaughter innocents, but then your god has plenty of form.

You're going to keep going with that whole "slaughter innocents" thing huh. So I am assuming you would have no problem with your free will being violated.

[charles_hamm]

Apparently Free Will trumps the Right to Life, in the mind of the Christian's God. Why?

Because the reality is that we seem to have Free Will and many use it to kill. It has to be explained somehow, so Christians make Free Will the most Godly thing.

It's ad hoc reasoning. If we we had some evolved trait to not kill, Christians would say that killing is the one thing God wouldn't tolerate - that he alone was in charge of Life and Death.

There is no answer a theist can't answer, they are always right because they believe themselves to be right.

"Because God Did It." is the Omni-answer. Why this? Why that? Why anything?

Because God Did It.

An answer that can answer every question is a useless answer.

Why did God do it that way? Why didn't God make us all more like Jesus, without sin in our hearts?

Because God Did It. Don't ask so many questions and repent....

Apparently not since abortions are allowed to happen everyday. Free will is a Godly thing; whether it's the most or not I don't know. Actually there are plenty I can't answer. That's why I direct people to pray for the answers. I thought the Omni-answer was "God doesn't exist"?

[charles_hamm]

Your thought might work except for the fact that it would God who gave the very meaning of morality and ethics. So no a special case is not needed here. I would interested to see what you deem as moral and then what you deem as a suitable punishment, if you think one should be punished, for immoral behavior.

What's not reasonable or logical to is to justify the actions of these groups of people. You have to do that in order to say they did not deserve punishment. Any argument beyond that is simply a personal opinion on what level of punishment they deserve. So the question becomes, are you justifying the actions of the groups above?

Why should that matter?? So, you think that God should follow the same standards he makes for someone else?? That sounds like , totally absurd. It is interesting the lengths someone will go to justify the acts attributed in God in the stories, but, well, it makes that whole 'moral and ethics comes from God' claim so very illogical.

You still didn't answer my question, so I'll ask it again. Are you justifying the actions of the groups that God judged? If not, then why is punishing them immoral or unethical?

No, I am judging the actions of the believers on how they change their ethics based on who is doing a specific action. It is not God I am judging, it is not the victims of the actions alleged that God did.. it is the way the believers justify the stories.

So your answer is no, the actions of the groups God judged were not justified. The next question then is if their actions were unjustified then why did they not deserve to be punished? You can't actually evaluate anyones ethics until you have a complete picture of the events.

[charles_hamm]

We are talking about godlike powers here, if I can change his mind about freeing the slaves, I can change his mind about going out and killing them. If I can spirit the slaves away, I can stop his army from finding them. There are any number of ways of avoiding any bloodshed given godlike powers.

That would violate free will to choose to believe in God.

What does any of that have to do with choosing to believe in God?

It would be reasonable to assume that if you believed in God and His messenger came and said let the Jews go, God demands it. You would. Since God does not force any to believe in him you have the freedom to deny His existence. That is free will.

There are also any number of ways of avoiding it if he had simply listened to Gods messenger.

Ah yes, shift the blame back to the fallible human who has a severely limited set of choosable actions in the hopes we'll forget that the infallible deity can do literally anything conceivable to defuse the situation.

Actually God was never to blame in the first place. The blame was always on the fallible human for choosing not to heed the warnings of God.

[Bust Nak]

That would violate free will to choose to believe in God. There are also any number of ways of avoiding it if he had simply listened to Gods messenger.

Sure Pharaoh was the villain in the story, no one would have been harm had he simply listened to Gods messenger, but the point was Pharaoh stubbiness is no excuse for killing any first born, there are any number of ways of avoiding that even without messing with his free will. I've suggested two such alternatives in my previous posts.

Collective punishment doesn't gel with our modern sense of justice. Killing people as a show of force outright contradict our modern sense of justice.

"When good men do nothing, evil triumphs". Edmund Burke. The Germans, whether afraid or not, stood by and did nothing. Put yourself in the shoes of the French in Paris, civilians who stood up to the Germans. Many died, but they helped to liberate their capital. Neither you no I know if the German people condoned what Hitler did. The only thing we have to go by are their actions.

And yet you are willing to give the German people the benefit of the doubt and not condemn them all to death, it is reasonable to assume they don't all know what was going on with the concentration camps, it's reasonable to assume they aren't all evil. I think it is just as reasonable to give the same benefit of the doubt to Naoh's contemporaries, Egyptians under the Pharaoh in question, the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah. You would too think it reasonable too, if not for the belief that God is just, and always have good jusifications for his actions.

What would you say to someone who sincerely believed that the Pharaoh being a living god, knew the Israelis were evil at heart and is justified in killing their first born?

No it would not, because I lack proof and I can't know the ways of their hearts, i.e. their intentions. That is something only the individual and God know.

I understand the Bible says God knew the people killed were all wicked. But if you look at the stories from the point of view of those who don't take these Bible stories at face value, which is the more believable:
1) Naoh's contemporaries etc. are so unlike any of us who have lived in the last 2000 years, that there aren't more than a handfull of what we would call an average Joe.
2) Naoh's contemporaries etc. are very much like us and God slayed the wicked along with a significan number of average people like you or I.

[charles_hamm]

That would violate free will to choose to believe in God. There are also any number of ways of avoiding it if he had simply listened to Gods messenger.

Sure Pharaoh was the villain in the story, no one would have been harm had he simply listened to Gods messenger, but the point was Pharaoh stubbiness is no excuse for killing any first born, there are any number of ways of avoiding that even without messing with his free will. I've suggested two such alternatives in my previous posts.

Collective punishment doesn't gel with our modern sense of justice. Killing people as a show of force outright contradict our modern sense of justice.

I'm not sure how well applying what you are calling our modern sense of justice would work. Actually killing people as a show of force lines up more than you think. America dropped atomic bombs as a show of force to make Japan surrender. The allies bombed cities that undoubtedly had civilians in them in order to stop an evil man.

"When good men do nothing, evil triumphs". Edmund Burke. The Germans, whether afraid or not, stood by and did nothing. Put yourself in the shoes of the French in Paris, civilians who stood up to the Germans. Many died, but they helped to liberate their capital. Neither you no I know if the German people condoned what Hitler did. The only thing we have to go by are their actions.

And yet you are willing to give the German people the benefit of the doubt and not condemn them all to death, it is reasonable to assume they don't all know what was going on with the concentration camps, it's reasonable to assume they aren't all evil. I think it is just as reasonable to give the same benefit of the doubt to Naoh's contemporaries, Egyptians under the Pharaoh in question, the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah. You would too think it reasonable too, if not for the belief that God is just, and always have good jusifications for his actions.

What would you say to someone who sincerely believed that the Pharaoh being a living god, knew the Israelis were evil at heart and is justified in killing their first born?

I'm not willing to place a decision to kill an entire group of people in the hands of a fallible human (me) who has no knowledge of their actual intentions. My point was as a human I can't condemn them because I lack the knowledge to know 100% what they intended by their actions. I can, however, look at the actions they took and determine that I may not believe them when they say they did not want to participate. I can give them the benefit of the doubt all day long, but that doesn't change the fact that God, who had the right to judge them, passed judgment for the acts of their leaders and possibly for their support of those actions.

He did kill Jewish male children as a form of population control.

No it would not, because I lack proof and I can't know the ways of their hearts, i.e. their intentions. That is something only the individual and God know.

I understand the Bible says God knew the people killed were all wicked. But if you look at the stories from the point of view of those who don't take these Bible stories at face value, which is the more believable:
1) Naoh's contemporaries etc. are so unlike any of us who have lived in the last 2000 years, that there aren't more than a handfull of what we would call an average Joe.
2) Naoh's contemporaries etc. are very much like us and God slayed the wicked along with a significan number of average people like you or I.

Your assumptions are all fine until remove the fact that God knew their hearts. If you look at areas today where civil wars rage, extreme hunger exist and lawless is you will see that in general the population becomes much looser with morals and values. It's not beyond possibility that these people had done just that.

You can't simply remove God and then ask "Now does this sound like it makes sense" which is in effect what you've done here.

[PhiloKGB]

It would be reasonable to assume that if you believed in God and His messenger came and said let the Jews go, God demands it. You would. Since God does not force any to believe in him you have the freedom to deny His existence. That is free will.

Right. Free will. Except that I can read Exodus, and when I read Exodus, I can't help but note that the whole deal is simply shot through with God openly manipulating Pharaoh to achieve God's end of showing off to the Egyptians.

Actually God was never to blame in the first place. The blame was always on the fallible human for choosing not to heed the warnings of God.

The dude who hardened Pharaoh's heart multiple times just so he could send plagues to threaten the Egyptians isn't to blame for Pharaoh's actions?

[Ooberman]

Apparently Free Will trumps the Right to Life, in the mind of the Christian's God. Why?

Because the reality is that we seem to have Free Will and many use it to kill. It has to be explained somehow, so Christians make Free Will the most Godly thing.

It's ad hoc reasoning. If we we had some evolved trait to not kill, Christians would say that killing is the one thing God wouldn't tolerate - that he alone was in charge of Life and Death.

There is no answer a theist can't answer, they are always right because they believe themselves to be right.

"Because God Did It." is the Omni-answer. Why this? Why that? Why anything?

Because God Did It.

An answer that can answer every question is a useless answer.

Why did God do it that way? Why didn't God make us all more like Jesus, without sin in our hearts?

Because God Did It. Don't ask so many questions and repent....

Apparently not since abortions are allowed to happen everyday.

That was my point, read again.

Free will is a Godly thing; whether it's the most or not I don't know.

That was my point, read again.

Actually there are plenty I can't answer. That's why I direct people to pray for the answers.

Why would that help?

I thought the Omni-answer was "God doesn't exist"?

No, that only answers one question, and means we have to explore and examine the world for the others.