Calling all Christians!

[rezo]

dude, change where I said "person" to "thing". You can also edit out all of the times I refer to god as "he", if you like, and replace it with something that isn't a pronoun referring to humans.

You keep backing up, rezo. First it was God's fault because He was the one you assumed was directly preforming the action. When I showed you He wasn't directly preforming the action it was His fault because He ordered the action. Why then will you not back it up far enough to see that it was Pharoah who is responcible, ultimatly, for the death of the first born children?

Where have I backed up? If god told the angel to carry out the killings, then the angel would be responsible for carrying out the killings and god would be responsible for telling him to do so. If god did not tell the angel anything and the angel carried out the killing, the angel would be responsible for hte killing and god at most would be responsible for not intervening, which isn't much. If god told pharoah to not kill the children, and pharoah killed the children, the pharoah would be responsible for the children getting killed. I have kept this same level of consistency in each post regarding blame. You providing different scenarios led to me supplying a different list relative to that scenario you supplied. It makes no difference to me.

Thats why I earlier said "if the angel of death carried out the killings" in response to your earlier post. I remember the story well enough, but I presumed that since you have a greater interest in the bible than I, I would simply give you the benefit of the doubt and . A mistake apparently, as you're playing some sort of game. Whatever. I haven't back tracked on anything. If you check my responses, you'll see that in whatever scenario you provided, I attempted to blame each person for their actual actions.

So when you said the angel of death was responsible for the actual killing, I thought that it would have been at the behest of god, as I didn't think an angel would do such a thing without official order. So I placed god as being responsible for giving the order and the angel for carrying it out.

If god actually had no role as the final level in your game suggested, then I would have questioned the angel of death only and if I were to bring up god at that point I would only wonder why god allowed it to happen without sending the angel of death off to be buddies with satan.

I have no arbitrary need to want god to be "messed up". That's just the way he is. I would actually prefer a good god existing. Given that I would prefer a good god existing, your feeling that I want god to be bad is out of place, so feel free to continue your attempts to convince me of otherwise.



As for pharoah: I'd agree. However, it was presented earlier in this topic as the pharoah being given a choice in spite of himself as a vindication of free will and from what I read that wasn't the case. God had already passed judgement, and moses didn't see pharoah one last time to give him one last chance to let the people go. He seems to have went there to tell him what his next punishment was and to gloat.

[frostwolf ex]

Y'see I am using the idea of a selfless act as an all encompassing thing. I believe everyone on this planet is capable of being selfless, but my idea is based on "being selfless without faith" and viewing the very idea of faith as a training wheel.

Think of it this way, when god, who by definition was always self-aware and always there and powerful, decided to create us in his image, did he do it without faith? Does he exist without faith? Does he do the things he does without faith?

And are we capable of the same things, of something truly selfless, and giving, and sacrificing something as sacred as our lives for another one, without having to believe in something. Without giving ourselves over to him. Doing it without justification.

Thats my question.

And my theory is, wouldn't that make us like him?

Ok, i see your question, its a different way of lookign at things, but i like it. Unfortunatly, you hit the most basic question that most introspective/bored theists eventually hit upon, why did God create everything? the standard answers range from evasive to trite, the bets answer i have heard is"err...dunno" Though my own personal theory deals with a particularly elaborate joke. I still question your use of selflessness, because you are questioning motivation, when i see the point of creation as being a function of power. God does not require faith because he knows all(or so sez the p.r. sheets) humans have faith because we dont have the capacity to "know" the whole playing field of existence. As such an act by a human and an act by God are forever different actions of kind. My prooblem is that our actions are constantly on a different frame of reality from God's, we dont know, but we act, God knows, so he ACTS. As such,any action we take without faith is simply based on whatever prior experiences we have had, and results are guessed at at best. God's acts will always be different in kind because they are done in the context of all reality being affected, and in the context of being sure what results the actions will have.

I will now sit back and let veggie, rezo, jester and saint got at it, as im too tired to enter the fray,maybe tommorow?

[Captain Vegetable]

dude, change where I said "person" to "thing". You can also edit out all of the times I refer to god as "he", if you like, and replace it with something that isn't a pronoun referring to humans.

Reguardless of the pronoun, you're still making an attempt at leveling the playing field. That is an incorrect action when debating what is right and just for God, and what is right and just for man.

There are actions that God can preform that humans can preform as well, and at the same time, for the same action, it can be right and just for God to preform it, and totally wicked for a man to preform it.

Motivation and character are key here, as well as station. God's ways are higher than ours, and all that.

I will agree, however, that there are actions whereby God and man can both preform them, and both can be right and just. Had Moses been ordained by God to kill, at his own hand, the first born sons of Egypt, then Moses would not be preforming an immoral or unjust act.

It looks to me like we're hitting the same topic, but at different angles. You think killing babies is wrong (for the sake of argument), so who ever performs this particular act is wrong, or at the very least is preforming a wrong action. I believe that any action outside the will of God is wrong, which means if these babies dieing is the will of God, it is a right and just act, but it is only a right and just act to be preformed by he whom God has ordianed to do it, which is the angel of death in this case.

I think that because of our two different views concerning this, we'll not soon reach any kind of conclusion.

All you need is Jesus Christ. You can think God is a baby-killer all you want and I don't really care, but you need Jesus. Why don't we start talking about Him, and any objection you might have concerning His deity or what have you?

Where have I backed up? If god told the angel to carry out the killings, then the angel would be responsible for carrying out the killings and god would be responsible for telling him to do so. If god did not tell the angel anything and the angel carried out the killing, the angel would be responsible for hte killing and god at most would be responsible for not intervening, which isn't much. If god told pharoah to not kill the children, and pharoah killed the children, the pharoah would be responsible for the children getting killed. I have kept this same level of consistency in each post regarding blame. You providing different scenarios led to me supplying a different list relative to that scenario you supplied. It makes no difference to me.

I understand, and it is because we differ on our core understanding of this scenerio that we're not getting eachother's points.

You don't see things my way, and I don't see them yours. And it's likely to stay this way for some time to come.

A mistake apparently, as you're playing some sort of game.

Nope, no game, I got my stories crossed and was trying to slink out of it unnoticed...which was a mistake. Sorry. I'll pay more attention to the particulars from now on.

I have no arbitrary need to want god to be "messed up". That's just the way he is. I would actually prefer a good god existing. Given that I would prefer a good god existing, your feeling that I want god to be bad is out of place, so feel free to continue your attempts to convince me of otherwise.

You think He's messed up, but He isn't, and I know He isn't, thusly I said you want Him to be, because if He isn't, but you continuously persist in the matter as though He is because you have some type of malformed opinions based on half-truths and misunderstandings, then it certainly would appear that way.

As for pharoah: I'd agree. However, it was presented earlier in this topic as the pharoah being given a choice in spite of himself as a vindication of free will and from what I read that wasn't the case. God had already passed judgement, and moses didn't see pharoah one last time to give him one last chance to let the people go. He seems to have went there to tell him what his next punishment was and to gloat.

I never said anything about free-will. That was Jester.

[rezo]

I believe that any action outside the will of God is wrong, which means if these babies dieing is the will of God, it is a right and just act, but it is only a right and just act to be preformed by he whom God has ordianed to do it, which is the angel of death in this case.

I know what your view is, all that I wonder about is the argument god has supplied that convinces you to back him 100%. And wouldn't a discussion of god apply to thoughts of Jesus as well, if you're someone that finds them to be one in the same?

[Captain Vegetable]

I know what your view is, all that I wonder about is the argument god has supplied that convinces you to back him 100%.

First of all I believe you place to much importance on physical life. Yes, God did take the life of those babies bodies, but He spared their spirits. Your spirit is what matters most, so it's really not so big a deal to die physically, to me anyway, if He was ushering them into a state of everlasting life with Himself as the focal point. This, of course, is dependant upon whether or not you think babies die and go to Heaven, which is an idea I'll refrain from expounding on. All I'm saying is that it's a good possibility.

Next, I know that our entire existence is to glorify God. His purpose is for us to show His glory, bear witness to His glory, and overall worship Him. This is a singular purpose; the very reason for our creation. His glory was shown in the life He took from those innocents, we both bear witness to that, and I'll bring Him the glory He is due.

And wouldn't a discussion of god apply to thoughts of Jesus as well, if you're someone that finds them to be one in the same?

Yes, it would, but I'm interested to hear about Jesus being a good guy and all that, while at the same time being referenced, quite unmistakably, as God the Father Himself, the alleged baby-killer.

Most people will agree that Jesus is a nice man, good moral teacher, etc. They'll say He has much wisdom and that He's a good person to model one's life after, all the while denying the fact that He is God. The same God we were just talking about who likes to kill innocent babies.

This is due in part to a misunderstanding concerning the old and new covenants God made with man. God hasn't changed; He is, was, and always will be Jesus, and the Father who destroyed Egypt's children, and the Holy Spirit who dwells within me; however, His covenant with man has changed, and so He acts accordingly. He is the same God, make no mistake, but we are now under a covenant of love and mercy, which is the new covenant under Jesus' sacrifice, as opposed to the old covenant of correct action and justice.

I can show you that Jesus loves us, and I can also show you that Jesus is God, so I'm just curious as to where you stand on the issue.

[rezo]

Yes, it would, but I'm interested to hear about Jesus being a good guy and all that, while at the same time being referenced, quite unmistakably, as God the Father Himself, the alleged baby-killer.

It comes from not being aware of the similarities in activity. Like, they would be unaware of Jesus's dismissive attitude, or asking for people to be brought to him so that he could strike them down and the like. Well, think about it. If you met two people at different times that you thought were twins and they acted entirely differently would you believe they were the same person? That's all that it amounts to.


But, anyways, you say you "know" that god has etc. What I'm asking for is the argument god has supplied that has caused you to "know" etc.

[Saint of Killers]

To call these people defective is as cruel as it is wrong. People are diverse, labeling these people as defective is your definition and not mine or God's. On a personal note my best friend Kurt has down syndrome and he is exactly the way he should be, if you continue to be utterly insulting then I will simply discontinue my correspondence to you on this matter.

Don't give me that shit.

"Marked by subnormal structure, function, intelligence, or behavior: defective speech. "

You brought the word up, not me. If you're going to consider people who sin without remorse defective but not schizophrenics and people born without legs, then you're way too fucking PC and need to lighten.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=defective

I have a feeling that you actually want God to be the bad guy, and as such, there is nothing I can say that would change your mind.

The fact that you can type that without irony is hilarious.

[Captain Vegetable]

It comes from not being aware of the similarities in activity. Like, they would be unaware of Jesus's dismissive attitude, or asking for people to be brought to him so that he could strike them down and the like. Well, think about it. If you met two people at different times that you thought were twins and they acted entirely differently would you believe they were the same person? That's all that it amounts to.

This makes sence, I suppose. But then, you seem to be someone who thinks that Jesus and God the Father, the alleged baby killer, are one and the same, so my question to you would be how then, do you account for all of the benevolent acts of Jesus, including but not limited to His death on the cross for our sins?

It would appear to be quite the conundrum.

But, anyways, you say you "know" that god has etc. What I'm asking for is the argument god has supplied that has caused you to "know" etc.

I know because God has proven Himself to me, as only He is capable of proving Himself to anyone. It's not something I can write down on a peice of paper, or exclaim on a street corner to convert the masses, but it is proof non-the-less.

If you want this same proof, you'll need to ask Him, not me. He's the only one who can provide it, and if you are truely looking, He'll let you know.

________________________________________________________

SoK, would you mind toning down your aggression? I don't know if it makes you feel good, or better than us, or what have you, but you seem particularly angry for no apparent reason.

Does pretending to be angry give you some false sence of security? Or maybe you feel as though the more angry you sound when you make a point the more valid that point is, and the more correct you stand to become?

You've got some issues, man.

[rezo]

It would appear to be quite the conundrum.

They're seperate. Ill will in some instances, blessings for others. Same could be said of god in the old testament, I imagine, and perhaps most everyone that has ever lived.

If you want this same proof, you'll need to ask Him, not me. He's the only one who can provide it, and if you are truely looking, He'll let you know.

And this is where the problem is. Its an explanation you can't present, so it would only make sense for me not to believe your conclusion. Likewise, the "if you're really looking, he'll let you know" is like a trap. What if I am amazingly concerned about it and look to god for the answer and find nothing. Well then, it would be said that "I wasn't really looking, or else I would have found it." Was I already presented with it when I was younger and simply rejected it the same way I would now because it may amount to nothing more than "I don't have an explanation for you, so trust me" ? Who knows. I'll cut off what I typed here and simply say that if an argument for his case was actually presented to you, it would make sense for you to attempt to rationalize it into a presentable form. You are human. You believe that you understood it did you not(it wouldn't make sense if you didn't). If its something that you are capable of understanding, you are potentially capable of translation. Nothing speaks against attempting that, am I right? Otherwise, your explanation is another empty wall similar to having faith(believe even if you don't know). A protection on your end that is entirely unintuitive to having an understanding as it sort of admits not having one. Which is all the more odder given the supposed rationality of god.

[Captain Vegetable]

And this is where the problem is. Its an explanation you can't present, so it would only make sense for me not to believe your conclusion.

I totally agree, but my goal wasn't to "make you believe," or present God in some bite-sized manner. My goal was to justify myself and my position, and I hope I did rather well.

Likewise, the "if you're really looking, he'll let you know" is like a trap. What if I am amazingly concerned about it and look to god for the answer and find nothing. Well then, it would be said that "I wasn't really looking, or else I would have found it."

This isn't true. Well, not of me anyway. I believe what the Bible tells me, and the Bible says, "knock and the door will be opened unto you." It also says that it is God's will for all men to know Him. It would stand to reason that if you asked, He'd tell you, and if He doesn't tell you right off the bat, that doesn't mean He won't in the future, or that you weren't making an honest, heart-felt attempt. All it means is that you should expect an answer if and when you ask Him, that's all. He might not give it today, or tomorrow, but He will let you know. I'm saying that authoritatively. It will happen, rezo.

I'll cut off what I typed here and simply say that if an argument for his case was actually presented to you, it would make sense for you to attempt to rationalize it into a presentable form.

It would make perfect sence, but it wasn't an argument that He presented to me. He spoke to me directly. I don't mean He instilled in me some type of feeling that lead me to believe He was there. What I mean is that He spoke to me with His own, audible voice.

There's your proof, and also the reason I cannot prove it to anyone else.

You are human. You believe that you understood it did you not(it wouldn't make sense if you didn't). If its something that you are capable of understanding, you are potentially capable of translation. Nothing speaks against attempting that, am I right? Otherwise, your explanation is another empty wall similar to having faith(believe even if you don't know). A protection on your end that is entirely unintuitive to having an understanding as it sort of admits not having one. Which is all the more odder given the supposed rationality of god.

See above.