100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: God is NOT a loving god. | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
DavidM616
on
Tue 10/25/16 12:08 PM
|
|
More on-topic, how about this:
Remember the story where David boinked Bathsheba, and then had her husband bumped off when she turned up pregnant? If you don't, you can read it in 2 Samuel, Chapters 11&12. Let's see what God did about that: "15 After Nathan had gone home, the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife had borne to David, and he became ill. 16 David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and spent the nights lying in sackcloth on the ground. 17 The elders of his household stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he would not eat any food with them. 18 On the seventh day the child died." So, David breaks a number of God's laws, and God retaliates by killing an innocent infant. Yep. That's a loving god, all right. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with you, moe. But, he's saying that there is EXTRA-biblical proof that Jesus was resurrected. That I'd like to see. there's not much proof he was ever a real person... seems the kingly records of the time would mention something about it... * Evidence from Tacitus * Evidence from Pliny the Younger * Evidence from Josephus - About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he . . . wrought surprising feats. . . . He was the Christ. When Pilate . . .condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared . . . restored to life. . . . And the tribe of Christians . . . has . . . not disappeared * Evidence from the Babylonian Talmud * Evidence from Lucian But as this sub discussion in this thread isn't specifically what the topic is about I did not include what evidences of Jesus' existence in all these references. Can further inform if requested. You are correct about this discussion being off-topic. My bad. As I don't want to derail the thread, all I will say is that the quotes that you mention do not constitute proof that Jesus was resurrected, for a number of reasons. Not the least of which is that, with the exception of the Testimonium Flavianum (Which is likely an interpolation, anyway.), none of them that I've seen actually mention a resurrection; just the execution! As to the point of the thread... Taking the Bible at face-value, here's something to think about: Yahweh came down off his cloud and warned Cain that he needed to rein in his anger and jealously before it caused him to sin, but didn't bother to take a few more minutes to go find righteous Abel and tell him, "Hey, Abel, your brother is really pissed at you, so watch your back when he's around. And whatever you do, DON'T go over into the field with him!" With friends like God...well, you know the rest. 
all I will say is that the quotes that you mention do not constitute proof that Jesus was resurrected, condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared . . . restored to life ?? Proof is only as valuable as one person wishes for it to have. A gun with finger prints of the person on it doesn't "prove" he shot the other person, but is accepted as proof. Yes the example is off topic from the thread entirely, but was mentioned to make a point that is boils down to perspective. So what does the statement "restored to life" infer if not a resurrection? As I said, of the examples you mentioned, only the TF refers to a RESURRECTION. And, there are good reasons to conclude that it is an interpolation. However, as you also said, this discussion is off-topic, and that's my fault for bringing it up on this thread. Therefore, I won't comment any further on the topic here. If you wish to discuss it further, I'll start another thread about the many problems with the secular references you cited. Sounds like a plan, will see you in that thread when it is created :). As I said I only gave a little "in detail" information about that one example. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
CowboyGH
on
Tue 10/25/16 02:29 PM
|
|
More on-topic, how about this: Remember the story where David boinked Bathsheba, and then had her husband bumped off when she turned up pregnant? If you don't, you can read it in 2 Samuel, Chapters 11&12. Let's see what God did about that: "15 After Nathan had gone home, the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife had borne to David, and he became ill. 16 David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and spent the nights lying in sackcloth on the ground. 17 The elders of his household stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he would not eat any food with them. 18 On the seventh day the child died." So, David breaks a number of God's laws, and God retaliates by killing an innocent infant. Yep. That's a loving god, all right.
What's essentially not loving about that? Yes the child's life was taken because of David's disobedience too the Lord, but that just means the child never had too feel or experience anything negative or foul through life, not even the feel of a paper cut. And please try to keep things in context, this is Old Testament, thus they were under the old covenant. Sins passed down if forgiveness had not be sought after. So therefore the child gave his life for David's sins. So with the taking of the child's life, the sin was forgiven. For sins are only forgiven through blood shed. Hebrews 9:22 22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. Thus their many different laws/regulations on sacrificing beasts in the old testament for forgiveness of sins. With the LORD taking the life of the child, the child paid for the sins of his father along with David personally being punished for his sins with loosing his child. In the OT times/covenant we were punished here on Earth for our sins and wrong doings. David blasphemed the Lord 2 Samuel 12:14 14 Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with you, moe. But, he's saying that there is EXTRA-biblical proof that Jesus was resurrected. That I'd like to see. there's not much proof he was ever a real person... seems the kingly records of the time would mention something about it... * Evidence from Tacitus * Evidence from Pliny the Younger * Evidence from Josephus - About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he . . . wrought surprising feats. . . . He was the Christ. When Pilate . . .condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared . . . restored to life. . . . And the tribe of Christians . . . has . . . not disappeared * Evidence from the Babylonian Talmud * Evidence from Lucian But as this sub discussion in this thread isn't specifically what the topic is about I did not include what evidences of Jesus' existence in all these references. Can further inform if requested. evidence is one thing, proof is another... The difference is perspective and that's but an opinion on how one wishes too look at something. Outside of that, they are the same thing. Well, we can pick apart the grammar of it all day but obviously what's meant is that without solid proof, god, jesus and the entire bible are no more real than a 2000 year old children's fairy tale. People seem to forget that until the last couple hundred years, there was a lot of boredom because we didn't have so much as a television or even phone of any kind. In a world ripe with ignorance and boredom such fairy tales are bound to spread like wildfire. Note how any serious godly interventions of any kind disappeared from existence when people found stuff to do? I am reminded of the phrase "Idle hands are the devil's playground". Well it rings oh so true in many ways. Idle hands and idle minds are god and the devil's playground. Or in laments terms, bored people make **** up. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with you, moe. But, he's saying that there is EXTRA-biblical proof that Jesus was resurrected. That I'd like to see. there's not much proof he was ever a real person... seems the kingly records of the time would mention something about it... * Evidence from Tacitus * Evidence from Pliny the Younger * Evidence from Josephus - About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he . . . wrought surprising feats. . . . He was the Christ. When Pilate . . .condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared . . . restored to life. . . . And the tribe of Christians . . . has . . . not disappeared * Evidence from the Babylonian Talmud * Evidence from Lucian But as this sub discussion in this thread isn't specifically what the topic is about I did not include what evidences of Jesus' existence in all these references. Can further inform if requested. evidence is one thing, proof is another... The difference is perspective and that's but an opinion on how one wishes too look at something. Outside of that, they are the same thing. Well, we can pick apart the grammar of it all day but obviously what's meant is that without solid proof, god, jesus and the entire bible are no more real than a 2000 year old children's fairy tale. People seem to forget that until the last couple hundred years, there was a lot of boredom because we didn't have so much as a television or even phone of any kind. In a world ripe with ignorance and boredom such fairy tales are bound to spread like wildfire. Note how any serious godly interventions of any kind disappeared from existence when people found stuff to do? I am reminded of the phrase "Idle hands are the devil's playground". Well it rings oh so true in many ways. Idle hands and idle minds are god and the devil's playground. Or in laments terms, bored people make **** up. Why speak so insultingly about people's belief even if you don't share them? And outside of the bible I've mentioned a couple external references of situations spoke about in the bible. And will share more of them as soon as the propper thread is made if he actually wishes to discuss that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Speaking the truth is insulting? Maybe to some but if you actually open your eyes and view things from an objective standpoint and don't let your years of brainwashing cloud your judgment and your ability to use basic logic then you may consider what I'm saying instead of merely feeling insult over it.
Like, seriously, when cameras and smartphones and television were invented did god just go "oh no... they can see me on a mass scale now! I'm so outta here!" /hides. But before the days of solid evidence he was sending down all his disciples and parting seas and performing miracles and speaking out of burning bushes etc.. Religious people find what I say to be insulting because they have no solid argument against my words. Because it challenges everything that they've been brainwashed for years/decades to believe. One argument I see used quite often is "well how do we know George Washington existed?" and to that I reply, because he wasn't a flying magical pixie from the planet Zolton here to save humanity from our sins. Those truths are simply too boring to make up unlike half the rubbish padding the bible pages. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
DavidM616
on
Wed 10/26/16 01:59 AM
|
|
I'll have to start the other thread later. By the time I reply to your other post, it's going to be bedtime. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More on-topic, how about this: Remember the story where David boinked Bathsheba, and then had her husband bumped off when she turned up pregnant? If you don't, you can read it in 2 Samuel, Chapters 11&12. Let's see what God did about that: "15 After Nathan had gone home, the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife had borne to David, and he became ill. 16 David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and spent the nights lying in sackcloth on the ground. 17 The elders of his household stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he would not eat any food with them. 18 On the seventh day the child died." So, David breaks a number of God's laws, and God retaliates by killing an innocent infant. Yep. That's a loving god, all right.
What's essentially not loving about that? Yes the child's life was taken because of David's disobedience too the Lord, but that just means the child never had too feel or experience anything negative or foul through life, not even the feel of a paper cut. And please try to keep things in context, this is Old Testament, thus they were under the old covenant. Sins passed down if forgiveness had not be sought after. So therefore the child gave his life for David's sins. So with the taking of the child's life, the sin was forgiven. For sins are only forgiven through blood shed. Hebrews 9:22 22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. Thus their many different laws/regulations on sacrificing beasts in the old testament for forgiveness of sins. With the LORD taking the life of the child, the child paid for the sins of his father along with David personally being punished for his sins with loosing his child. In the OT times/covenant we were punished here on Earth for our sins and wrong doings. David blasphemed the Lord 2 Samuel 12:14 14 Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. The first thing that strikes me about your reply is that it is a good example of how religion warps ones thinking. I cannot imagine you defending anyone else killing an infant. Only God. He has the best PR Agency of all time. He gets all the credit for the good stuff, and none of the blame for the bad. Sir, allow me to reiterate...GOD killed an INFANT! It's true that the child never experienced any negative things as a result of God killing him in cold blood, but he also didn't get to experience any of the good things, either. He was just a pawn. Keep things in context? I am keeping things in context. The subject of this thread is that God is NOT a loving god. My example is one of many that I could, and may yet, provide that supports the OP's contention. Old covenant or New, God is god, right? His standards, his morality, and his justice shouldn't change. And, according to the Bible, God doesn't change: Malachi 3:6 - "For I [am] the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed." I don't know if you believe in the Trinity or not, but if you do, this one applies here as well: Hebrews 13:8 - "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." And, while I'm quoting scripture, note that the Bible clearly states that the child could not pay for his father's sin, as you contended: Deuteronomy 24:16 "16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin." Psalm 49:7 "7 None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:" Ezekiel 18:20 "20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." As you said, David blasphemed the Lord. Therefore, HE should have been killed, not the child. But, Yahweh killed the kid, anyway. Of course, the primitive folks who were writing these stories had no problem with that, because they were still operating under primitive theology. As far as they were concerned, whatever Yahweh did, it was automatically right, even if it was evil: Isaiah 45:7 "7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." But, as time went by, theology evolved. During the Exile, Israel was exposed to Persian dualism, and Presto! They had their answer. Give Yahweh credit for the good stuff, and blame the bad stuff on someone else. However, I hold God to a higher standard. After all, he's God. Right? I expect him to act like it. And, killing infants in order to punish someone else is not loving god behavior as far as I'm concerned. Also...don't you find the concept of blood sacrifice for remission of sin to be primitive, barbarous, and repugnant? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
God still exists... And you still have to get over it. how about some Objective Proof to your Claim? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More on-topic, how about this: Remember the story where David boinked Bathsheba, and then had her husband bumped off when she turned up pregnant? If you don't, you can read it in 2 Samuel, Chapters 11&12. Let's see what God did about that: "15 After Nathan had gone home, the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife had borne to David, and he became ill. 16 David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and spent the nights lying in sackcloth on the ground. 17 The elders of his household stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he would not eat any food with them. 18 On the seventh day the child died." So, David breaks a number of God's laws, and God retaliates by killing an innocent infant. Yep. That's a loving god, all right.
What's essentially not loving about that? Yes the child's life was taken because of David's disobedience too the Lord, but that just means the child never had too feel or experience anything negative or foul through life, not even the feel of a paper cut. And please try to keep things in context, this is Old Testament, thus they were under the old covenant. Sins passed down if forgiveness had not be sought after. So therefore the child gave his life for David's sins. So with the taking of the child's life, the sin was forgiven. For sins are only forgiven through blood shed. Hebrews 9:22 22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. Thus their many different laws/regulations on sacrificing beasts in the old testament for forgiveness of sins. With the LORD taking the life of the child, the child paid for the sins of his father along with David personally being punished for his sins with loosing his child. In the OT times/covenant we were punished here on Earth for our sins and wrong doings. David blasphemed the Lord 2 Samuel 12:14 14 Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. The first thing that strikes me about your reply is that it is a good example of how religion warps ones thinking. I cannot imagine you defending anyone else killing an infant. Only God. He has the best PR Agency of all time. He gets all the credit for the good stuff, and none of the blame for the bad. Sir, allow me to reiterate...GOD killed an INFANT! It's true that the child never experienced any negative things as a result of God killing him in cold blood, but he also didn't get to experience any of the good things, either. He was just a pawn. Keep things in context? I am keeping things in context. The subject of this thread is that God is NOT a loving god. My example is one of many that I could, and may yet, provide that supports the OP's contention. Old covenant or New, God is god, right? His standards, his morality, and his justice shouldn't change. And, according to the Bible, God doesn't change: Malachi 3:6 - "For I [am] the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed." I don't know if you believe in the Trinity or not, but if you do, this one applies here as well: Hebrews 13:8 - "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." And, while I'm quoting scripture, note that the Bible clearly states that the child could not pay for his father's sin, as you contended: Deuteronomy 24:16 "16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin." Psalm 49:7 "7 None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:" Ezekiel 18:20 "20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." As you said, David blasphemed the Lord. Therefore, HE should have been killed, not the child. But, Yahweh killed the kid, anyway. Of course, the primitive folks who were writing these stories had no problem with that, because they were still operating under primitive theology. As far as they were concerned, whatever Yahweh did, it was automatically right, even if it was evil: Isaiah 45:7 "7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." But, as time went by, theology evolved. During the Exile, Israel was exposed to Persian dualism, and Presto! They had their answer. Give Yahweh credit for the good stuff, and blame the bad stuff on someone else. However, I hold God to a higher standard. After all, he's God. Right? I expect him to act like it. And, killing infants in order to punish someone else is not loving god behavior as far as I'm concerned. Also...don't you find the concept of blood sacrifice for remission of sin to be primitive, barbarous, and repugnant? I don't know nearly enough of the bible to begin making quotes of it but I know enough to know that it contradicts itself more times than I can count. It's a very poetic book meant to enslave the feeble minded. I don't mean that as an insult mind you, at least not to those that are able to view things objectively and not just follow blindly the teachings of a 2000 year old fairy tale. As for the last sentence you said, many barbaric rituals are carried on because of the bible, circumcision(baby mutilation) for instance. Yet another reason people should pull their heads into common day and stop following that trash. If it were up to the bible thumpers(that is those that follow the bible 'religiously') we'd be stuck in the dark ages until the end of our days. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Speaking the truth is insulting? Maybe to some but if you actually open your eyes and view things from an objective standpoint and don't let your years of brainwashing cloud your judgment and your ability to use basic logic then you may consider what I'm saying instead of merely feeling insult over it. Like, seriously, when cameras and smartphones and television were invented did god just go "oh no... they can see me on a mass scale now! I'm so outta here!" /hides. But before the days of solid evidence he was sending down all his disciples and parting seas and performing miracles and speaking out of burning bushes etc.. Religious people find what I say to be insulting because they have no solid argument against my words. Because it challenges everything that they've been brainwashed for years/decades to believe. One argument I see used quite often is "well how do we know George Washington existed?" and to that I reply, because he wasn't a flying magical pixie from the planet Zolton here to save humanity from our sins. Those truths are simply too boring to make up unlike half the rubbish padding the bible pages. Like, seriously, when cameras and smartphones and television were invented did god just go "oh no... they can see me on a mass scale now! I'm so outta here!" /hides. But before the days of solid evidence he was sending down all his disciples and parting seas and performing miracles and speaking out of burning bushes etc.. Miracles still happen every day my friend, just now they are classed as things such as "medical anomalies and other anomalies not specific too the medical area" Or just coincidence and things such as. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Rooster35
on
Wed 10/26/16 09:07 AM
|
|
God still exists... And you still have to get over it. how about some Objective Proof to your Claim? God has always existed, He came first. There is no denying that, ever. So, really, the ones who say He doesn't exist are the ones the burden of proof falls on. I don't care about your reasoning, your judgement, your thoughts or arguments, as far as the Creator of the Universe is concerned, they are flawed. We are ALL flawed so we're rally wasting our time in this thread. You can talk until you're blue in the face then explode, I still say: God exists, get used to it. You don't believe? I don't care. I sure am not going to waste my time debating Creation with anyone but my family. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Oneec
on
Wed 10/26/16 09:27 AM
|
|
I'm not saying I believe in the existence of a god, because I don't. I'm mostly posting here because the atheist forums are practically dead, which I don't really understand. Over 200k posts in religion and 1k in atheist forums. How do so many people in the age of logic and reason still believe in the existence of a god? It is written in the bible that god is a loving god, god is a forgiving god, blah blah. But in practice, god is a vindictive god, god is a childish god and god is a cruel god. The whole story about Noah's ark is basically a story about a god that got mad, threw a childish temper tantrum and killed everyone on the planet save a boatload of people and animals. Does that really seem like an all knowing god of great wisdom to anyone? If anyone has seen the movie "machine gun preacher". There's a movie based on the real life of Sam Childers, a biker that found religion after he thought he killed a man then traveling to Africa and helping to save a bunch of children from a corrupt warlord. On to my point. In the movie(based on real life) you see a bunch of children in a pile that were torched to death because they tried to escape. Was that all part of gods plan, did god "love" these children in their final minutes as they were brutally burned to death and screaming? Seems like a damned sadistic god to me. Basically what I'm saying is that if god does exist, he's pretty much using us as lab rats in his psychological experiment. All of the good stuff and "miracles" that he's let happen really do pale in comparison to all the atrocities that he's turned a blind eye to all in favor of fulfilling his "divine plan". In my honest opinion the novelty of "god" died off in the 20th century. I think that many of us are smart enough to come to the realization that the invention of a god in inevitable because we all fear death and therefore invent the prospect of an afterlife, and who would be powerful enough to design such a thing? "God" and only that. But all that is self defeating, instead of confronting our fear of death and helping to seek a method of prolonging our lives through science, we run to religion which has a long standing history of stifling science. Many people will argue the existence of a god because they feel that they've seen him in one manner or another. His face is on a door, his face was on a grilled cheese sandwich or the classic "I see it in the miracles that happen every day". Such as what? Newborn life? Every time a baby is born it's a "miracle". Well what about those born into third world countries that starve to death before they're old enough to read or what about those born into overpopulous that struggle through their entire life just trying to make ends meet(because it's a rat race just to get a job)then ultimately succumb to suicide. Was there really a point in either of those being born just to live a life of pain and suffering with no chance for a happy ending? Or perhaps people will argue the "miracles" of rain or the sun coming up each day. Nope, the sun is a giant ball of gas and the rain is just precipitation. God exists because like an imaginary friend when we have no other, we want him to exist and if we stop believing, he will not exist. When God created mankind He created us complete with a brain so we can think properly as human, plan and decide to which I believe that we us human are responsible with our individual right or wrong doing... Whether you believe or not it's your own opinion but haven't you realized that when you said here that God is blah blah blah it already proven that you believe that God really exist... It's just that... With whatever wrong doing mankind has done God is the one to blame as what you're saying when obviously it's not God who did it... Is human really created to put finger or put the blame on others? This is such a pity to us then |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More on-topic, how about this: Remember the story where David boinked Bathsheba, and then had her husband bumped off when she turned up pregnant? If you don't, you can read it in 2 Samuel, Chapters 11&12. Let's see what God did about that: "15 After Nathan had gone home, the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife had borne to David, and he became ill. 16 David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and spent the nights lying in sackcloth on the ground. 17 The elders of his household stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he would not eat any food with them. 18 On the seventh day the child died." So, David breaks a number of God's laws, and God retaliates by killing an innocent infant. Yep. That's a loving god, all right.
What's essentially not loving about that? Yes the child's life was taken because of David's disobedience too the Lord, but that just means the child never had too feel or experience anything negative or foul through life, not even the feel of a paper cut. And please try to keep things in context, this is Old Testament, thus they were under the old covenant. Sins passed down if forgiveness had not be sought after. So therefore the child gave his life for David's sins. So with the taking of the child's life, the sin was forgiven. For sins are only forgiven through blood shed. Hebrews 9:22 22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. Thus their many different laws/regulations on sacrificing beasts in the old testament for forgiveness of sins. With the LORD taking the life of the child, the child paid for the sins of his father along with David personally being punished for his sins with loosing his child. In the OT times/covenant we were punished here on Earth for our sins and wrong doings. David blasphemed the Lord 2 Samuel 12:14 14 Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. The first thing that strikes me about your reply is that it is a good example of how religion warps ones thinking. I cannot imagine you defending anyone else killing an infant. Only God. He has the best PR Agency of all time. He gets all the credit for the good stuff, and none of the blame for the bad. Sir, allow me to reiterate...GOD killed an INFANT! It's true that the child never experienced any negative things as a result of God killing him in cold blood, but he also didn't get to experience any of the good things, either. He was just a pawn. Keep things in context? I am keeping things in context. The subject of this thread is that God is NOT a loving god. My example is one of many that I could, and may yet, provide that supports the OP's contention. Old covenant or New, God is god, right? His standards, his morality, and his justice shouldn't change. And, according to the Bible, God doesn't change: Malachi 3:6 - "For I [am] the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed." I don't know if you believe in the Trinity or not, but if you do, this one applies here as well: Hebrews 13:8 - "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." And, while I'm quoting scripture, note that the Bible clearly states that the child could not pay for his father's sin, as you contended: Deuteronomy 24:16 "16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin." Psalm 49:7 "7 None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:" Ezekiel 18:20 "20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." As you said, David blasphemed the Lord. Therefore, HE should have been killed, not the child. But, Yahweh killed the kid, anyway. Of course, the primitive folks who were writing these stories had no problem with that, because they were still operating under primitive theology. As far as they were concerned, whatever Yahweh did, it was automatically right, even if it was evil: Isaiah 45:7 "7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." But, as time went by, theology evolved. During the Exile, Israel was exposed to Persian dualism, and Presto! They had their answer. Give Yahweh credit for the good stuff, and blame the bad stuff on someone else. However, I hold God to a higher standard. After all, he's God. Right? I expect him to act like it. And, killing infants in order to punish someone else is not loving god behavior as far as I'm concerned. Also...don't you find the concept of blood sacrifice for remission of sin to be primitive, barbarous, and repugnant? The first thing that strikes me about your reply is that it is a good example of how religion warps ones thinking. I cannot imagine you defending anyone else killing an infant. Only God. He has the best PR Agency of all time. He gets all the credit for the good stuff, and none of the blame for the bad. The first thing that strikes me about your reply is that it is a good example of how secularism warps ones thinking. I can not imagine you speaking foul against someone or more specifically a judge that sentences someone to death for their crimes, even mass massacres or mass rapings, ect. Even life in prison would be just as similar as ones life being taken away, even more cruel at that. Not promoting the death penalty, just using this as a secular example for you. Sir, allow me to reiterate...GOD killed an INFANT! Sir, no he did not. David killed that infant. It was a reaction/responsive judgement too David's actions. If David would never have blasphemed the Lord, the infants life would not have been taken away. And who's to say that infant isn't alive in Heaven with God right now? It never said the infant was sent to the lake of fire. Deuteronomy 24:16 "16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin." Again, please I beg of you too keep verses in context. This entire chapter is referencing relationships, divorce, remarriage, and the effects it has on the kids there of. 24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. 24:17 Thou shalt not pervert the judgment of the stranger, nor of the fatherless; nor take a widow's raiment to pledge Also...don't you find the concept of blood sacrifice for remission of sin to be primitive, barbarous, and repugnant? Not "specifically" no. Everyone needs blood in one way or other, especially in that day and age when everyday was physical exertion through work and simply living. They needed the proteins contained in "blood" to have the strength too accomplish such a life. So in "sacrificing" such things as animals in a display of their grievance for their works, was a good display as again that was a very needed source of nutrients they would need to live displaying more so of their grievance in their mistakes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More on-topic, how about this: Remember the story where David boinked Bathsheba, and then had her husband bumped off when she turned up pregnant? If you don't, you can read it in 2 Samuel, Chapters 11&12. Let's see what God did about that: "15 After Nathan had gone home, the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife had borne to David, and he became ill. 16 David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and spent the nights lying in sackcloth on the ground. 17 The elders of his household stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he would not eat any food with them. 18 On the seventh day the child died." So, David breaks a number of God's laws, and God retaliates by killing an innocent infant. Yep. That's a loving god, all right.
What's essentially not loving about that? Yes the child's life was taken because of David's disobedience too the Lord, but that just means the child never had too feel or experience anything negative or foul through life, not even the feel of a paper cut. And please try to keep things in context, this is Old Testament, thus they were under the old covenant. Sins passed down if forgiveness had not be sought after. So therefore the child gave his life for David's sins. So with the taking of the child's life, the sin was forgiven. For sins are only forgiven through blood shed. Hebrews 9:22 22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. Thus their many different laws/regulations on sacrificing beasts in the old testament for forgiveness of sins. With the LORD taking the life of the child, the child paid for the sins of his father along with David personally being punished for his sins with loosing his child. In the OT times/covenant we were punished here on Earth for our sins and wrong doings. David blasphemed the Lord 2 Samuel 12:14 14 Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. The first thing that strikes me about your reply is that it is a good example of how religion warps ones thinking. I cannot imagine you defending anyone else killing an infant. Only God. He has the best PR Agency of all time. He gets all the credit for the good stuff, and none of the blame for the bad. Sir, allow me to reiterate...GOD killed an INFANT! It's true that the child never experienced any negative things as a result of God killing him in cold blood, but he also didn't get to experience any of the good things, either. He was just a pawn. Keep things in context? I am keeping things in context. The subject of this thread is that God is NOT a loving god. My example is one of many that I could, and may yet, provide that supports the OP's contention. Old covenant or New, God is god, right? His standards, his morality, and his justice shouldn't change. And, according to the Bible, God doesn't change: Malachi 3:6 - "For I [am] the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed." I don't know if you believe in the Trinity or not, but if you do, this one applies here as well: Hebrews 13:8 - "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." And, while I'm quoting scripture, note that the Bible clearly states that the child could not pay for his father's sin, as you contended: Deuteronomy 24:16 "16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin." Psalm 49:7 "7 None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:" Ezekiel 18:20 "20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." As you said, David blasphemed the Lord. Therefore, HE should have been killed, not the child. But, Yahweh killed the kid, anyway. Of course, the primitive folks who were writing these stories had no problem with that, because they were still operating under primitive theology. As far as they were concerned, whatever Yahweh did, it was automatically right, even if it was evil: Isaiah 45:7 "7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." But, as time went by, theology evolved. During the Exile, Israel was exposed to Persian dualism, and Presto! They had their answer. Give Yahweh credit for the good stuff, and blame the bad stuff on someone else. However, I hold God to a higher standard. After all, he's God. Right? I expect him to act like it. And, killing infants in order to punish someone else is not loving god behavior as far as I'm concerned. Also...don't you find the concept of blood sacrifice for remission of sin to be primitive, barbarous, and repugnant? The first thing that strikes me about your reply is that it is a good example of how religion warps ones thinking. I cannot imagine you defending anyone else killing an infant. Only God. He has the best PR Agency of all time. He gets all the credit for the good stuff, and none of the blame for the bad. The first thing that strikes me about your reply is that it is a good example of how secularism warps ones thinking. I can not imagine you speaking foul against someone or more specifically a judge that sentences someone to death for their crimes, even mass massacres or mass rapings, ect. Even life in prison would be just as similar as ones life being taken away, even more cruel at that. Not promoting the death penalty, just using this as a secular example for you. Sir, allow me to reiterate...GOD killed an INFANT! Sir, no he did not. David killed that infant. It was a reaction/responsive judgement too David's actions. If David would never have blasphemed the Lord, the infants life would not have been taken away. And who's to say that infant isn't alive in Heaven with God right now? It never said the infant was sent to the lake of fire. Deuteronomy 24:16 "16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin." Again, please I beg of you too keep verses in context. This entire chapter is referencing relationships, divorce, remarriage, and the effects it has on the kids there of. 24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. 24:17 Thou shalt not pervert the judgment of the stranger, nor of the fatherless; nor take a widow's raiment to pledge Also...don't you find the concept of blood sacrifice for remission of sin to be primitive, barbarous, and repugnant? Not "specifically" no. Everyone needs blood in one way or other, especially in that day and age when everyday was physical exertion through work and simply living. They needed the proteins contained in "blood" to have the strength too accomplish such a life. So in "sacrificing" such things as animals in a display of their grievance for their works, was a good display as again that was a very needed source of nutrients they would need to live displaying more so of their grievance in their mistakes. I WOULDN'T "speak foul" of a judge that sentenced someone to death for "mass massacres, mass rapings, etc." This infant had committed no such crimes. He was killed by God in order to punish David. That is not fair. That is not "loving." No matter how much you try to spin it.He was just a plaything in the hands of a cruel and vindictive god. And, yes, GOD killed the infant. You can toy with semantics and say that David killed the child all you want, but in the end, GOD did it. I am also not concerned about where the child might be now. Sure, it would be better if it were in Heaven rather than Hell (Not that I believe in either place. Just taking the Bible at face-value for the sake of discussion.), but that's not even the point. The point is the heinous nature of God killing an infant as a means of punishing someone else, who should have paid for his own crimes. If I killed someone, would you expect me to be executed for it, or should my daughter be executed in my place? As far as your comments regarding context, I don't really have time to go into why those passages do apply here, as I have to go to work. So, for now, I will quote a different passage instead: Leviticus 20:10 "10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death." David committed adultery, therefore HE should have been put to death, not his child. Yes, we all need blood in one way or another, but the idea that animal or human sacrifice was necessary to appease God is ridiculous. Even in the case of life-saving blood transfusions, the donor isn't SLAUGHTERED. This is nothing but primitive superstition. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not saying I believe in the existence of a god, because I don't. I'm mostly posting here because the atheist forums are practically dead, which I don't really understand. Over 200k posts in religion and 1k in atheist forums. How do so many people in the age of logic and reason still believe in the existence of a god? It is written in the bible that god is a loving god, god is a forgiving god, blah blah. But in practice, god is a vindictive god, god is a childish god and god is a cruel god. The whole story about Noah's ark is basically a story about a god that got mad, threw a childish temper tantrum and killed everyone on the planet save a boatload of people and animals. Does that really seem like an all knowing god of great wisdom to anyone? If anyone has seen the movie "machine gun preacher". There's a movie based on the real life of Sam Childers, a biker that found religion after he thought he killed a man then traveling to Africa and helping to save a bunch of children from a corrupt warlord. On to my point. In the movie(based on real life) you see a bunch of children in a pile that were torched to death because they tried to escape. Was that all part of gods plan, did god "love" these children in their final minutes as they were brutally burned to death and screaming? Seems like a damned sadistic god to me. Basically what I'm saying is that if god does exist, he's pretty much using us as lab rats in his psychological experiment. All of the good stuff and "miracles" that he's let happen really do pale in comparison to all the atrocities that he's turned a blind eye to all in favor of fulfilling his "divine plan". In my honest opinion the novelty of "god" died off in the 20th century. I think that many of us are smart enough to come to the realization that the invention of a god in inevitable because we all fear death and therefore invent the prospect of an afterlife, and who would be powerful enough to design such a thing? "God" and only that. But all that is self defeating, instead of confronting our fear of death and helping to seek a method of prolonging our lives through science, we run to religion which has a long standing history of stifling science. Many people will argue the existence of a god because they feel that they've seen him in one manner or another. His face is on a door, his face was on a grilled cheese sandwich or the classic "I see it in the miracles that happen every day". Such as what? Newborn life? Every time a baby is born it's a "miracle". Well what about those born into third world countries that starve to death before they're old enough to read or what about those born into overpopulous that struggle through their entire life just trying to make ends meet(because it's a rat race just to get a job)then ultimately succumb to suicide. Was there really a point in either of those being born just to live a life of pain and suffering with no chance for a happy ending? Or perhaps people will argue the "miracles" of rain or the sun coming up each day. Nope, the sun is a giant ball of gas and the rain is just precipitation. God exists because like an imaginary friend when we have no other, we want him to exist and if we stop believing, he will not exist. When God created mankind He created us complete with a brain so we can think properly as human, plan and decide to which I believe that we us human are responsible with our individual right or wrong doing... Whether you believe or not it's your own opinion but haven't you realized that when you said here that God is blah blah blah it already proven that you believe that God really exist... It's just that... With whatever wrong doing mankind has done God is the one to blame as what you're saying when obviously it's not God who did it... Is human really created to put finger or put the blame on others? This is such a pity to us then IF god did exist in his all powerful form as people suggest then he easily has the power to intervene on all the wrongdoings but instead sits around and does nothing. He's like a police officer that sits there and watches murder happen in front of him and does nothing. Useless.. He watches people get brutally tortured until their minds are warped to pure evil on a daily basis and does nothing. Heck, according to the bible those people then end up getting punished with a trip directly to hell upon their death. As stated in the OP, IF he did exist, he's not a loving god and I'd go so far as to say the worlds biggest a--hole. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More on-topic, how about this: Remember the story where David boinked Bathsheba, and then had her husband bumped off when she turned up pregnant? If you don't, you can read it in 2 Samuel, Chapters 11&12. Let's see what God did about that: "15 After Nathan had gone home, the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife had borne to David, and he became ill. 16 David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and spent the nights lying in sackcloth on the ground. 17 The elders of his household stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he would not eat any food with them. 18 On the seventh day the child died." So, David breaks a number of God's laws, and God retaliates by killing an innocent infant. Yep. That's a loving god, all right.
What's essentially not loving about that? Yes the child's life was taken because of David's disobedience too the Lord, but that just means the child never had too feel or experience anything negative or foul through life, not even the feel of a paper cut. And please try to keep things in context, this is Old Testament, thus they were under the old covenant. Sins passed down if forgiveness had not be sought after. So therefore the child gave his life for David's sins. So with the taking of the child's life, the sin was forgiven. For sins are only forgiven through blood shed. Hebrews 9:22 22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. Thus their many different laws/regulations on sacrificing beasts in the old testament for forgiveness of sins. With the LORD taking the life of the child, the child paid for the sins of his father along with David personally being punished for his sins with loosing his child. In the OT times/covenant we were punished here on Earth for our sins and wrong doings. David blasphemed the Lord 2 Samuel 12:14 14 Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. The first thing that strikes me about your reply is that it is a good example of how religion warps ones thinking. I cannot imagine you defending anyone else killing an infant. Only God. He has the best PR Agency of all time. He gets all the credit for the good stuff, and none of the blame for the bad. Sir, allow me to reiterate...GOD killed an INFANT! It's true that the child never experienced any negative things as a result of God killing him in cold blood, but he also didn't get to experience any of the good things, either. He was just a pawn. Keep things in context? I am keeping things in context. The subject of this thread is that God is NOT a loving god. My example is one of many that I could, and may yet, provide that supports the OP's contention. Old covenant or New, God is god, right? His standards, his morality, and his justice shouldn't change. And, according to the Bible, God doesn't change: Malachi 3:6 - "For I [am] the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed." I don't know if you believe in the Trinity or not, but if you do, this one applies here as well: Hebrews 13:8 - "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." And, while I'm quoting scripture, note that the Bible clearly states that the child could not pay for his father's sin, as you contended: Deuteronomy 24:16 "16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin." Psalm 49:7 "7 None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:" Ezekiel 18:20 "20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." As you said, David blasphemed the Lord. Therefore, HE should have been killed, not the child. But, Yahweh killed the kid, anyway. Of course, the primitive folks who were writing these stories had no problem with that, because they were still operating under primitive theology. As far as they were concerned, whatever Yahweh did, it was automatically right, even if it was evil: Isaiah 45:7 "7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." But, as time went by, theology evolved. During the Exile, Israel was exposed to Persian dualism, and Presto! They had their answer. Give Yahweh credit for the good stuff, and blame the bad stuff on someone else. However, I hold God to a higher standard. After all, he's God. Right? I expect him to act like it. And, killing infants in order to punish someone else is not loving god behavior as far as I'm concerned. Also...don't you find the concept of blood sacrifice for remission of sin to be primitive, barbarous, and repugnant? The first thing that strikes me about your reply is that it is a good example of how religion warps ones thinking. I cannot imagine you defending anyone else killing an infant. Only God. He has the best PR Agency of all time. He gets all the credit for the good stuff, and none of the blame for the bad. The first thing that strikes me about your reply is that it is a good example of how secularism warps ones thinking. I can not imagine you speaking foul against someone or more specifically a judge that sentences someone to death for their crimes, even mass massacres or mass rapings, ect. Even life in prison would be just as similar as ones life being taken away, even more cruel at that. Not promoting the death penalty, just using this as a secular example for you. Sir, allow me to reiterate...GOD killed an INFANT! Sir, no he did not. David killed that infant. It was a reaction/responsive judgement too David's actions. If David would never have blasphemed the Lord, the infants life would not have been taken away. And who's to say that infant isn't alive in Heaven with God right now? It never said the infant was sent to the lake of fire. Deuteronomy 24:16 "16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin." Again, please I beg of you too keep verses in context. This entire chapter is referencing relationships, divorce, remarriage, and the effects it has on the kids there of. 24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. 24:17 Thou shalt not pervert the judgment of the stranger, nor of the fatherless; nor take a widow's raiment to pledge Also...don't you find the concept of blood sacrifice for remission of sin to be primitive, barbarous, and repugnant? Not "specifically" no. Everyone needs blood in one way or other, especially in that day and age when everyday was physical exertion through work and simply living. They needed the proteins contained in "blood" to have the strength too accomplish such a life. So in "sacrificing" such things as animals in a display of their grievance for their works, was a good display as again that was a very needed source of nutrients they would need to live displaying more so of their grievance in their mistakes. I WOULDN'T "speak foul" of a judge that sentenced someone to death for "mass massacres, mass rapings, etc." This infant had committed no such crimes. He was killed by God in order to punish David. That is not fair. That is not "loving." No matter how much you try to spin it.He was just a plaything in the hands of a cruel and vindictive god. And, yes, GOD killed the infant. You can toy with semantics and say that David killed the child all you want, but in the end, GOD did it. I am also not concerned about where the child might be now. Sure, it would be better if it were in Heaven rather than Hell (Not that I believe in either place. Just taking the Bible at face-value for the sake of discussion.), but that's not even the point. The point is the heinous nature of God killing an infant as a means of punishing someone else, who should have paid for his own crimes. If I killed someone, would you expect me to be executed for it, or should my daughter be executed in my place? As far as your comments regarding context, I don't really have time to go into why those passages do apply here, as I have to go to work. So, for now, I will quote a different passage instead: Leviticus 20:10 "10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death." David committed adultery, therefore HE should have been put to death, not his child. Yes, we all need blood in one way or another, but the idea that animal or human sacrifice was necessary to appease God is ridiculous. Even in the case of life-saving blood transfusions, the donor isn't SLAUGHTERED. This is nothing but primitive superstition. This infant had committed no such crimes. He was killed by God in order to punish David. That is not fair. It is unfair to an extent. This infant never faced disease, physical or emotional pain while the rest of us do. And, yes, GOD killed the infant. You can toy with semantics and say that David killed the child all you want, but in the end, GOD did it. Where does it state that God "killed" the infant? Again, yes he took the infants life. But that doesn't mean the infant lost that life. Again does not reference the infant being thrown into the lake of fire, so there is no reason to believe/suspect the infant isn't with God as we type these messages back and forth. The point is the heinous nature of God killing an infant as a means of punishing someone else, who should have paid for his own crimes. That was more punishment towards David then the infant. As previously mentioned quite a few times that infant never had to face anything foul or negative in life. Got to spend it's entire existence with the LORD in the paradise. Yet David never got raise the child, or enjoy any moments there with the child. So he in fact was paying for his crimes with the emotional distress of living forever with the regret of his blasphemy which caused this too happen, the regret of being responsible for his child never experiencing a life in this world. Yes, we all need blood in one way or another, but the idea that animal or human sacrifice was necessary to appease God is ridiculous. Even in the case of life-saving blood transfusions, the donor isn't SLAUGHTERED. This is nothing but primitive superstition. The sacrifices didn't "appease" God. But he allowed them as a way to fix a wrong doing by giving up something they direly needed to merely exist. Again, there were no shopping malls to run down to if they were hungry to get some food and such things as that. Isaiah 1:11 11 To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the Lord: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. Jeremiah 6:20 20 To what purpose cometh there to me incense from Sheba, and the sweet cane from a far country? your burnt offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices sweet unto me. Thus why the LORD came and sacrificed himself for us all. To rid the need or the desire of man to do these sacrifices in hopes to please God in giving up something to show their compassion and regret towards their actions. Hebrews 13:16 16 But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased. Thus why I assume the change in between the two covenants from sacrificing beasts, to having faith and believing in Jesus and his teachings. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More on-topic, how about this: Remember the story where David boinked Bathsheba, and then had her husband bumped off when she turned up pregnant? If you don't, you can read it in 2 Samuel, Chapters 11&12. Let's see what God did about that: "15 After Nathan had gone home, the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife had borne to David, and he became ill. 16 David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and spent the nights lying in sackcloth on the ground. 17 The elders of his household stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he would not eat any food with them. 18 On the seventh day the child died." So, David breaks a number of God's laws, and God retaliates by killing an innocent infant. Yep. That's a loving god, all right.
What's essentially not loving about that? Yes the child's life was taken because of David's disobedience too the Lord, but that just means the child never had too feel or experience anything negative or foul through life, not even the feel of a paper cut. And please try to keep things in context, this is Old Testament, thus they were under the old covenant. Sins passed down if forgiveness had not be sought after. So therefore the child gave his life for David's sins. So with the taking of the child's life, the sin was forgiven. For sins are only forgiven through blood shed. Hebrews 9:22 22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. Thus their many different laws/regulations on sacrificing beasts in the old testament for forgiveness of sins. With the LORD taking the life of the child, the child paid for the sins of his father along with David personally being punished for his sins with loosing his child. In the OT times/covenant we were punished here on Earth for our sins and wrong doings. David blasphemed the Lord 2 Samuel 12:14 14 Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. The first thing that strikes me about your reply is that it is a good example of how religion warps ones thinking. I cannot imagine you defending anyone else killing an infant. Only God. He has the best PR Agency of all time. He gets all the credit for the good stuff, and none of the blame for the bad. Sir, allow me to reiterate...GOD killed an INFANT! It's true that the child never experienced any negative things as a result of God killing him in cold blood, but he also didn't get to experience any of the good things, either. He was just a pawn. Keep things in context? I am keeping things in context. The subject of this thread is that God is NOT a loving god. My example is one of many that I could, and may yet, provide that supports the OP's contention. Old covenant or New, God is god, right? His standards, his morality, and his justice shouldn't change. And, according to the Bible, God doesn't change: Malachi 3:6 - "For I [am] the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed." I don't know if you believe in the Trinity or not, but if you do, this one applies here as well: Hebrews 13:8 - "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." And, while I'm quoting scripture, note that the Bible clearly states that the child could not pay for his father's sin, as you contended: Deuteronomy 24:16 "16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin." Psalm 49:7 "7 None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him:" Ezekiel 18:20 "20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." As you said, David blasphemed the Lord. Therefore, HE should have been killed, not the child. But, Yahweh killed the kid, anyway. Of course, the primitive folks who were writing these stories had no problem with that, because they were still operating under primitive theology. As far as they were concerned, whatever Yahweh did, it was automatically right, even if it was evil: Isaiah 45:7 "7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." But, as time went by, theology evolved. During the Exile, Israel was exposed to Persian dualism, and Presto! They had their answer. Give Yahweh credit for the good stuff, and blame the bad stuff on someone else. However, I hold God to a higher standard. After all, he's God. Right? I expect him to act like it. And, killing infants in order to punish someone else is not loving god behavior as far as I'm concerned. Also...don't you find the concept of blood sacrifice for remission of sin to be primitive, barbarous, and repugnant? The first thing that strikes me about your reply is that it is a good example of how religion warps ones thinking. I cannot imagine you defending anyone else killing an infant. Only God. He has the best PR Agency of all time. He gets all the credit for the good stuff, and none of the blame for the bad. The first thing that strikes me about your reply is that it is a good example of how secularism warps ones thinking. I can not imagine you speaking foul against someone or more specifically a judge that sentences someone to death for their crimes, even mass massacres or mass rapings, ect. Even life in prison would be just as similar as ones life being taken away, even more cruel at that. Not promoting the death penalty, just using this as a secular example for you. Sir, allow me to reiterate...GOD killed an INFANT! Sir, no he did not. David killed that infant. It was a reaction/responsive judgement too David's actions. If David would never have blasphemed the Lord, the infants life would not have been taken away. And who's to say that infant isn't alive in Heaven with God right now? It never said the infant was sent to the lake of fire. Deuteronomy 24:16 "16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin." Again, please I beg of you too keep verses in context. This entire chapter is referencing relationships, divorce, remarriage, and the effects it has on the kids there of. 24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. 24:17 Thou shalt not pervert the judgment of the stranger, nor of the fatherless; nor take a widow's raiment to pledge Also...don't you find the concept of blood sacrifice for remission of sin to be primitive, barbarous, and repugnant? Not "specifically" no. Everyone needs blood in one way or other, especially in that day and age when everyday was physical exertion through work and simply living. They needed the proteins contained in "blood" to have the strength too accomplish such a life. So in "sacrificing" such things as animals in a display of their grievance for their works, was a good display as again that was a very needed source of nutrients they would need to live displaying more so of their grievance in their mistakes. I WOULDN'T "speak foul" of a judge that sentenced someone to death for "mass massacres, mass rapings, etc." This infant had committed no such crimes. He was killed by God in order to punish David. That is not fair. That is not "loving." No matter how much you try to spin it.He was just a plaything in the hands of a cruel and vindictive god. And, yes, GOD killed the infant. You can toy with semantics and say that David killed the child all you want, but in the end, GOD did it. I am also not concerned about where the child might be now. Sure, it would be better if it were in Heaven rather than Hell (Not that I believe in either place. Just taking the Bible at face-value for the sake of discussion.), but that's not even the point. The point is the heinous nature of God killing an infant as a means of punishing someone else, who should have paid for his own crimes. If I killed someone, would you expect me to be executed for it, or should my daughter be executed in my place? As far as your comments regarding context, I don't really have time to go into why those passages do apply here, as I have to go to work. So, for now, I will quote a different passage instead: Leviticus 20:10 "10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death." David committed adultery, therefore HE should have been put to death, not his child. Yes, we all need blood in one way or another, but the idea that animal or human sacrifice was necessary to appease God is ridiculous. Even in the case of life-saving blood transfusions, the donor isn't SLAUGHTERED. This is nothing but primitive superstition. This infant had committed no such crimes. He was killed by God in order to punish David. That is not fair. It is unfair to an extent. This infant never faced disease, physical or emotional pain while the rest of us do. And, yes, GOD killed the infant. You can toy with semantics and say that David killed the child all you want, but in the end, GOD did it. Where does it state that God "killed" the infant? Again, yes he took the infants life. But that doesn't mean the infant lost that life. Again does not reference the infant being thrown into the lake of fire, so there is no reason to believe/suspect the infant isn't with God as we type these messages back and forth. The point is the heinous nature of God killing an infant as a means of punishing someone else, who should have paid for his own crimes. That was more punishment towards David then the infant. As previously mentioned quite a few times that infant never had to face anything foul or negative in life. Got to spend it's entire existence with the LORD in the paradise. Yet David never got raise the child, or enjoy any moments there with the child. So he in fact was paying for his crimes with the emotional distress of living forever with the regret of his blasphemy which caused this too happen, the regret of being responsible for his child never experiencing a life in this world. Yes, we all need blood in one way or another, but the idea that animal or human sacrifice was necessary to appease God is ridiculous. Even in the case of life-saving blood transfusions, the donor isn't SLAUGHTERED. This is nothing but primitive superstition. The sacrifices didn't "appease" God. But he allowed them as a way to fix a wrong doing by giving up something they direly needed to merely exist. Again, there were no shopping malls to run down to if they were hungry to get some food and such things as that. Isaiah 1:11 11 To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the Lord: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. Jeremiah 6:20 20 To what purpose cometh there to me incense from Sheba, and the sweet cane from a far country? your burnt offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices sweet unto me. Thus why the LORD came and sacrificed himself for us all. To rid the need or the desire of man to do these sacrifices in hopes to please God in giving up something to show their compassion and regret towards their actions. Hebrews 13:16 16 But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased. Thus why I assume the change in between the two covenants from sacrificing beasts, to having faith and believing in Jesus and his teachings. If people would have done the following, no sacrifice of any kind would have needed to be done or even be done. Hebrews 13:16 16 But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not saying I believe in the existence of a god, because I don't. I'm mostly posting here because the atheist forums are practically dead, which I don't really understand. Over 200k posts in religion and 1k in atheist forums. How do so many people in the age of logic and reason still believe in the existence of a god? It is written in the bible that god is a loving god, god is a forgiving god, blah blah. But in practice, god is a vindictive god, god is a childish god and god is a cruel god. The whole story about Noah's ark is basically a story about a god that got mad, threw a childish temper tantrum and killed everyone on the planet save a boatload of people and animals. Does that really seem like an all knowing god of great wisdom to anyone? If anyone has seen the movie "machine gun preacher". There's a movie based on the real life of Sam Childers, a biker that found religion after he thought he killed a man then traveling to Africa and helping to save a bunch of children from a corrupt warlord. On to my point. In the movie(based on real life) you see a bunch of children in a pile that were torched to death because they tried to escape. Was that all part of gods plan, did god "love" these children in their final minutes as they were brutally burned to death and screaming? Seems like a damned sadistic god to me. Basically what I'm saying is that if god does exist, he's pretty much using us as lab rats in his psychological experiment. All of the good stuff and "miracles" that he's let happen really do pale in comparison to all the atrocities that he's turned a blind eye to all in favor of fulfilling his "divine plan". In my honest opinion the novelty of "god" died off in the 20th century. I think that many of us are smart enough to come to the realization that the invention of a god in inevitable because we all fear death and therefore invent the prospect of an afterlife, and who would be powerful enough to design such a thing? "God" and only that. But all that is self defeating, instead of confronting our fear of death and helping to seek a method of prolonging our lives through science, we run to religion which has a long standing history of stifling science. Many people will argue the existence of a god because they feel that they've seen him in one manner or another. His face is on a door, his face was on a grilled cheese sandwich or the classic "I see it in the miracles that happen every day". Such as what? Newborn life? Every time a baby is born it's a "miracle". Well what about those born into third world countries that starve to death before they're old enough to read or what about those born into overpopulous that struggle through their entire life just trying to make ends meet(because it's a rat race just to get a job)then ultimately succumb to suicide. Was there really a point in either of those being born just to live a life of pain and suffering with no chance for a happy ending? Or perhaps people will argue the "miracles" of rain or the sun coming up each day. Nope, the sun is a giant ball of gas and the rain is just precipitation. God exists because like an imaginary friend when we have no other, we want him to exist and if we stop believing, he will not exist. When God created mankind He created us complete with a brain so we can think properly as human, plan and decide to which I believe that we us human are responsible with our individual right or wrong doing... Whether you believe or not it's your own opinion but haven't you realized that when you said here that God is blah blah blah it already proven that you believe that God really exist... It's just that... With whatever wrong doing mankind has done God is the one to blame as what you're saying when obviously it's not God who did it... Is human really created to put finger or put the blame on others? This is such a pity to us then IF god did exist in his all powerful form as people suggest then he easily has the power to intervene on all the wrongdoings but instead sits around and does nothing. He's like a police officer that sits there and watches murder happen in front of him and does nothing. Useless.. He watches people get brutally tortured until their minds are warped to pure evil on a daily basis and does nothing. Heck, according to the bible those people then end up getting punished with a trip directly to hell upon their death. As stated in the OP, IF he did exist, he's not a loving god and I'd go so far as to say the worlds biggest a--hole. Only seen that way through eyes that only see this world. This world is temporary, everything that happens, happened, happening, or will happen on this Earth is merely temporary. It's a trail period towards eternity. He's not just sitting back doing nothing my friend. All will reap what they sow, good or bad in due time. Again, this world is but temporary. Going on the general age area, 70 years on this Earth is but a blink of an eye compared to eternity. So what's the big deal some bad things may happen in between those 70 years when it's followed by an eternity of being personally in the paradise with our Father? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not saying I believe in the existence of a god, because I don't. I'm mostly posting here because the atheist forums are practically dead, which I don't really understand. Over 200k posts in religion and 1k in atheist forums. How do so many people in the age of logic and reason still believe in the existence of a god? It is written in the bible that god is a loving god, god is a forgiving god, blah blah. But in practice, god is a vindictive god, god is a childish god and god is a cruel god. The whole story about Noah's ark is basically a story about a god that got mad, threw a childish temper tantrum and killed everyone on the planet save a boatload of people and animals. Does that really seem like an all knowing god of great wisdom to anyone? If anyone has seen the movie "machine gun preacher". There's a movie based on the real life of Sam Childers, a biker that found religion after he thought he killed a man then traveling to Africa and helping to save a bunch of children from a corrupt warlord. On to my point. In the movie(based on real life) you see a bunch of children in a pile that were torched to death because they tried to escape. Was that all part of gods plan, did god "love" these children in their final minutes as they were brutally burned to death and screaming? Seems like a damned sadistic god to me. Basically what I'm saying is that if god does exist, he's pretty much using us as lab rats in his psychological experiment. All of the good stuff and "miracles" that he's let happen really do pale in comparison to all the atrocities that he's turned a blind eye to all in favor of fulfilling his "divine plan". In my honest opinion the novelty of "god" died off in the 20th century. I think that many of us are smart enough to come to the realization that the invention of a god in inevitable because we all fear death and therefore invent the prospect of an afterlife, and who would be powerful enough to design such a thing? "God" and only that. But all that is self defeating, instead of confronting our fear of death and helping to seek a method of prolonging our lives through science, we run to religion which has a long standing history of stifling science. Many people will argue the existence of a god because they feel that they've seen him in one manner or another. His face is on a door, his face was on a grilled cheese sandwich or the classic "I see it in the miracles that happen every day". Such as what? Newborn life? Every time a baby is born it's a "miracle". Well what about those born into third world countries that starve to death before they're old enough to read or what about those born into overpopulous that struggle through their entire life just trying to make ends meet(because it's a rat race just to get a job)then ultimately succumb to suicide. Was there really a point in either of those being born just to live a life of pain and suffering with no chance for a happy ending? Or perhaps people will argue the "miracles" of rain or the sun coming up each day. Nope, the sun is a giant ball of gas and the rain is just precipitation. God exists because like an imaginary friend when we have no other, we want him to exist and if we stop believing, he will not exist. When God created mankind He created us complete with a brain so we can think properly as human, plan and decide to which I believe that we us human are responsible with our individual right or wrong doing... Whether you believe or not it's your own opinion but haven't you realized that when you said here that God is blah blah blah it already proven that you believe that God really exist... It's just that... With whatever wrong doing mankind has done God is the one to blame as what you're saying when obviously it's not God who did it... Is human really created to put finger or put the blame on others? This is such a pity to us then IF god did exist in his all powerful form as people suggest then he easily has the power to intervene on all the wrongdoings but instead sits around and does nothing. He's like a police officer that sits there and watches murder happen in front of him and does nothing. Useless.. He watches people get brutally tortured until their minds are warped to pure evil on a daily basis and does nothing. Heck, according to the bible those people then end up getting punished with a trip directly to hell upon their death. As stated in the OP, IF he did exist, he's not a loving god and I'd go so far as to say the worlds biggest a--hole. Only seen that way through eyes that only see this world. This world is temporary, everything that happens, happened, happening, or will happen on this Earth is merely temporary. It's a trail period towards eternity. He's not just sitting back doing nothing my friend. All will reap what they sow, good or bad in due time. Again, this world is but temporary. Going on the general age area, 70 years on this Earth is but a blink of an eye compared to eternity. So what's the big deal some bad things may happen in between those 70 years when it's followed by an eternity of being personally in the paradise with our Father? Or if that 14-70 years is utter crap and warps your mind to evil then you get eternity in hell(apparently), suffering and screaming in eternal torment but god loves us all equally and that's why we have such an uneven chance of making it into heaven. There's those of us that get kicked into the dirt on a daily basis and those of us that get a free ride through life on daddy's cash and have amazing looks and charisma and were born into the family that follows the correct religion, since there's like, 20+ religions all conflicting with one another so it's like a lotery to see if you can get the right one and follow it well enough to make it into 'heaven'. Like I said, the bible and religion in general contradicts itself a stupid number of times. Religion was just invented by those in power to keep the people docile. Do good and you get to go to heaven, be good and Santa will bring you what you want. Only difference between Santa and god is that one gets debunked once we reach a certain age and the other doesn't get officially debunked until after we're dead. |
|
|
|
|
