Please forgive me for replying out of order. I have a reason, but it is a loathsome personal attack, so I won't state it, to appease the Moderation gods. So, to your post, SkyHook, I would like to say: I would prefer the same; but being goaded by...other people whom I see as intellectually and socially inferior (i.e. everyone) brings out the "best" in me. :|

I am mostly kidding.

Anyway, *deep sigh*, onto the debate...

I am terribly sorry to have confused you. But I, having been repeatedly asked to re-explain the same thing over and over again, sometimes vary my wording (yes, it is possible to say the same thing two different ways! Must we go into the def. of a contradiction again, or do you have that straight finally?) to keep myself from being driven to sobs of intellectual ennui.

God did not NEED to prove HIS OWN WORTH to anyone; He CHOSE to allow these events to take place FOR THE BENEFIT OF OTHER PEOPLE.

Please do not ask me about this again. If you do, please reference the thousands--well, it must be millions, by now--of times I've explained this before. Hey, you even have a variety of styles and moods and wording to choose from! O_O

Well, you see, in dealing with pseudo-intellectuals and generally young-soul-crushing individuals (not necessarily you!) over the course of my life--I have become overtly cruel and angry in my expression. Perhaps you've noticed.

That is to say, the way I explain things to people, such as yourself, is sadistic.

Lo siento (un poco).

Nonetheless...

Of course, you would realize all these things for yourself if you weren't so cynical (intellectually, I mean) about the stories and studied them in depth, as I and many have, having been raised under the teaching and studied it formally and at length in college. It's not that the stories cannot be understood by all; they can, if you put the effort into it. If all you do is a cursory, cynical glance, you will gain approximately nothing from it; even a long, cynical glance is fruitless. Careful, thoughtful study will bring and has brought many to the same conclusions.

Are there still disagreements over meaning of certain things? Of course; but is that a flaw in the text itself? Nope. People are flawed. God allowed only what He wanted to be recorded; and it is all we need for now.

Will you read any of that? Probably not; because duplicity can be an art, apparently!

Nope. Grand exaggerations are fun, aren't they?

Two different religions: Judaism versus Christianity. Jews do not believe Christ was their Messiah; CHRISTians do.

Nope; they actually have the Qu'ran. Remember?

Yes, that's because The Catholic Church actually values other texts in addition to the Bible; quite a wrong thing indeed; reminiscent of the Pharisees, frankly, in the promoting of extra-Biblical, man-made writings. I would say, with the Protestant church, it is a very good kind of dissension. Did it bring difficulty? Of course. Such is life, at the moment.

You have to admit that where humans exist, dissension exists; conflict exists. Look at us now, chummy. That does not say anything about the value of God's Word; it says something about the nature of humanity. Where ambiguity exists (ah, something present in all worldviews) in one verse, for instance, clarity comes from looking at the overall context of the book; and, if still necessary, at the whole of Scripture.

God judges; Man obeys according to His judgment.

Hmmm, a beautifully arbitrary statement! What "dirty work"? What are you even talking about?

If anything, Scripture proves that man (and, indeed, the men God inspired to write) is crappy in every single respect, apart from God! Certainly not a "self-beneficial" thing. And in the NT, Christians were martyred for their beliefs; gee wiz, they sure had a great "gig" there, didn't they?

Please show me the passage where God told people to stone sinners to death; it must be in The Book of Stuff You Made Up: Chapter Invisible.

Uh oh, SkyHook, what's this? Where were you on this one?

I assume you meant "noT me," based on context, but illiteracy is a quite an epidemic in this world of ours.

Again, God judges; never instructed man to judge. God, being God, decides what is just and right to do. I'm sorry that's difficult for you to believe. I'd rather have that than the endless, meaninglessly relativistic "morality" brought to you by society's main sponsor, Post-Modernism.

Got news for you, champ; the world did not need "false mythology" as an excuse to turn against each other; that comes naturally, as you should very well know.

THANK YOU. Thank you for saying something vaguely positive for the first time. I made it bold to positively reinforce this behavior.

They nailed Jesus to the cross for claiming to be Yahweh; even though He is. Hence, the problem.

Hate to break this to you: Life is often ugly and violent. A fairy tale would blot all that out with sunshine and magical flowers or something. It would be an overt lie to remove all the violence. However, reading the actual text would help in realizing that it, much like life actually, is not all that; it is often beautiful and joyful. Read some of the Psalms sometime; Hebrew poetry at its best, and much of it very positive and uplifting, and, indeed, divine!

Thank you for your response, be it evasive and, as a matter of fact, equally as derisive as mine.

His posts are replete with condescension. Would you prefer that my personal attacks were veiled, like his? I would do, but no one on this site seems to get sarcasm.

Yes. <:D


Well, exactly. Adam and Eve's initial disobedience was what separated them from God. In Scripture, "death" always equals some form of "separation" (whether soul from body, man from God, believers from right experience, etc.).

Love and obedience, in respect to a relationship to God, go hand-in-hand. Obedience demonstrates love. Love can be, should be, more than a feeling; it should be a way of life. (Not that I've been particularly successful at that lately, as you can probably tell!)

It may sound Big-Brother-esque (mostly because George Orwell stole the idea ) but slavery to a God who loves is freedom. Slavery to sin is death, though it may not "feel" like it. Our Americanized view of freedom and slavery has tainted what the concept means in Scripture; it is possible to serve God and be free; in fact, the actions are interchangeable.

Well, that's Karma for you. :)

But yes, God is love. God is also just and cannot tolerate sin. That is why He demands we go through his means, Jesus Christ, to be saved. Though it seems nice, the ambiguous, sentimental version of love won't save anyone from Hell, the fate for all our good intentions we all deserve.

As C.S. Lewis said (I think), "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

Jeanniebean, I will respond to your post shortly. Thank you for your decent, thoughtful, demonstrative-that-you've-actually-READ-what-I've-Written response. Thank you. Now, onto the opposite...

Abracadabra,

Your name may be a "magic" word, but that does not mean that if you say something, it magically becomes true, without explanation, justification, or effective thought for that matter. Calling something contradictory (thanks, Captain Malapropism, but "contradictive" is not a word) does not make it so. You have failed in every sense to convince me in the slightest of such claims, for sheer lack of evidence and valid, coherent explanation. Fail.

Also, I don't usually do this, but I will condescend to over-simplify and condense my thoughts hereafter, so that you might overcome your rudeness and illiteracy to actually read my response. Apologize; because I have read all of your horribly-wrought, stream-of-consciousness-esque responses. Why? Perhaps because I am a masochist; but at least I am a decent enough human being to listen to what the philistines (you, for example) have to say. Believe me, I will only give your ape-like scrawlings a cursory read henceforth.

A contradiction is saying two opposing things are true. Now,

THE POINT, THE REAL POINT, OF THE STORY WAS TO SHOW TO EVERYONE THAT JOB DID NOT SERVE GOD BECAUSE OF HIS POSSESSIONS. THAT IS WHY GOD ALLOWED SATAN TO DO AS HE DID.

(I could not be blunter if I beat the point in with a hammer.)

A contradiction is saying two opposing things are true (in case you did not read it the first time; will repeat until acknowledge).

Of course, Job was a loyal servant. THE POINT WAS PROVING THAT HE WAS NOT LOYAL AND FAITHFUL BECAUSE OF ALL HE HAD. HENCE, GOD TOOK AWAY WHAT HE HAD, SHOWING JOB'S FAITHFULNESS WAS GENUINE.

(Not that you would understand this, either, but the book of Job is a didactic story (meant to teach); the lesson is faithfulness, despite suffering.)

First off, you are not clever, witty, or effectively condescending. Just to dispel those lies straightaway!

*God does not need to prove anything to anyone.
*Satan approached God and accused Him of putting a "hedge of protection" around Job.
*God ALLOWED Satan to test Job.

The End.

(Hand puppets next time!)

Well, you didn't read them; that would make my explanations very diffcult to understand, philistine!

You take what you like of the story, allowing your extreme, comprehension-blinding bias to cloud an objective reading of the story.

You say "poor Job and his family," boohoo, but fail to recognize the validity of anything else. How much of it is true? That is inconsistent thinking.

God did not "jump through hoops," God ALLOWED Satan--i.e. gave him permission--to do as he did. Not that you will understand that difference.

Uhhhh...before the Old Testament? Don't think so!

It's not about who wrote it down first. Christianity holds that believers existed from the beginning, though they weren't called "Christians." It started with Adam and Eve, who knew God, and an oral history followed.

You humanize God, imagining that He did not know what was coming. God is in control and does as He will.

Said before, God gave the "heathen" nations innumerable chances; they refused, so he had them killed. Their fault! God is perfectly just.

Your bias and self-confusion seems irreparable. THAT is terribly sad and pathetic. You see things as you like, not as they are. Hopefully, one day God will break through your delusions.

How's that sound, pumpkin? ;)

Double.

Either you did not read my response or were unable to...accept the logic of it. Either way, I will repeat myself more thoroughly; hopefully, you'll actually read it this time! Please do; I take the time to read every word of your "sagacious" posts.

Sure isn't! Oh, and for reference: Job.

Mmm, already addressed this; thanks for paying attention!

It is not a bet; God already knew the outcome. "A bet" entails both parties not knowing what will happen; hence, it is a "gamble," a bet. The reason God allowed Satan to carry out his request was to prove a point: That Job did not serve God and live according to His laws because of the blessings he had.

...And? God was protecting Job; Satan obviously needed to ask permission because God had placed "a hedge of protection" around Job.

Again...and? God already knew the outcome. The point was not that God needed to test Job because He was unsure what would happen; the point was to demonstrate Job's loyalty.

It was not just "an entire family"; It was JOB'S entire family; a blessing God had given to him, among so many other things; God had the right to allow this to happen, because He blessed Job with it in the first place; He could allow it to be taken away.

Please, please understand what I've written this time. It is difficult to explain any more simply and clearly than that, save for hand puppets.

Actually, this story confirms in every single sense God's character(istics).

1. All-knowing and all-wise (synonymous terms, actually): God knew the outcome from the beginning; otherwise, why would He allow such things to happen for the purpose of proving Himself wrong? THAT would be inconsistent and prove his knowledge finite. He knows suffering strengthens and has a purpose; otherwise, He would not allow it.

2. All-compassionate: Freewill is a blessing, but we abused it; therefore, suffering exists. Death exists. Despite this, God blesses man; completely undeserved. I'm not sure if you've ever read the end of Job, but God actually restores everything Job had. So, the purpose of the suffering was met (showing Job feared God NOT because of his possessions), and Job again received blessings. Did God need to? Nope. But He did.

God had complete control over what happened; what Satan did and the fate of those involved. He is actually God, after all.

Thanks for the thought, but I had actually addressed those things before. Now, if you actually read what I wrote this time, you might actually get lucky and stumble upon comprehension.

God actually gave those people hundreds of years and far too many chances to repent. They did not. So, being God and knowing they would not change, He commanded Israel to destroy those nations. Does that make more sense?

Jesus never, ever, ever...ever...denounced Yahweh. He called God "His father" and stated repeatedly His love for Him. He and the Father are One. Scour the Gospels--Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John--You will find no example of such "denouncement." Cute idea, though!

What Christ denounced was the laws the Pharisees concocted *in addition" to God's law; man-made "rituals" that were meant to make them "holy." Jesus denounced turning God's Law into a business, which was what the Pharisees were doing.

Jesus perfectly fulfilled Old Testament prophecy. The two testaments go hand-in-hand (if you actually read them, that is!).

There are very few things that I do not understand. But one, is how one person (you, actually) manages to speak so much without considering a word of what others say.

Also, please: Do not use the terms "all-wise, all-compassionate" again unless you intend to think about it first. You seem to thoughtlessly use the terms.

An all-stupid, all-hateful God would simply kill disobedient creations. Instead, God, Yahweh, chose to create a system to teach these people to understand the significance of what sin has done: It has brought death.

The sacrifices are to help man to understand:

A.) God's righteousness. He cannot tolerate sin without it, in some fashion, being payed for. First, God designed the animal/food sacrifices; then He sent His son to be the ultimate sacrifice for all mankind, not just Israel. It all comes together perfectly.
B.) Man's sinful state.
C.) God's love and mercy in accepting the sacrifice of another instead of destroying man.
D.) Obedience. The point was not blood, but obedience. Over time, man made it all about blood, but the original point was giving up something for God and obeying.

I really hope this makes sense this time. If not, I feel sorry for you.

Also, it's no wonder Greek mythology included blood sacrifices; Most cults mimic Christianity!

You seem to have prolific difficulty understanding the fairly straightforward concept of "sacrifice."

Before I again futilely try to explain, please just tell me: What do you think a "sacrifice" is? What is it for?

What's the point of being a "god" if you have flaws? To have superpowers? That is why Greek mythology is meaningless and "beautifully" (because some people don't get sarcasm, I included quotation marks!) reveling the evils of mankind!

Obviously, you have not studied the Bible in depth. Or if you have read it, you have utterly failed at comprehending it in even its most surface sense.

Even the "nicest" person by man's standards is downright evil by God's. Man's expectations are very low indeed, in comparison.

God hates evil. God hates the evil that man, for a catastrophic moment, loved more than God. God wants man to WANT to be restored; He could very well have forced him to or simply eliminated man, but instead allowed the choice. Which would you have rather had? (Or perhaps you would enjoy being a robot?)

No, actually, it is not. The supposed "contradictions" that you saw stemmed directly from your misunderstanding of each of the concepts involved. Clearly, you have failed to understand what little--if any--Scripture you've read. I feel sorry for you being so enslaved by your presuppositions, instead of reading the text as it really is.

Yeet. >_>

JK! :(

*Slashes violently at your cheek, leaving visible marks, foaming a little from the mouth*

YOWT! YEET ATOUT! >:(

*Stands on hind legs, beggin' for treatz (with a "z"!)*

I'm cryin'! CRYIN'!

Golly, you guys! Golly!

Nope.

"Aware–adjective
1. having knowledge; conscious; cognizant: aware of danger.
2. informed; alert; knowledgeable; sophisticated: She is one of the most politically aware young women around. "

So, "awareness" is basically synonymous with "consciousness" and/or having a mental capacity. Minerals and plants lack brains and, thus, mental capacity. So, it seems a bit of a stretch to apply that to non-sentient things, especially rocks!

Is it POSSIBLE to apply the term to non-sentient things? Sure; but that's called animism/pantheism/Inconsistent with Atheism (or whatever you want to call an avidly non-spiritual view).

I was confronting the inconsistencies in Abra's worldview, speaking ABOUT HIS perspective. I never said there was or *should be* anything "scientifically sound" about belief in God. In fact, the two views oppose like oil and water.

God is not a "term"; He is a being, a spiritual being. The Creator; The Triune God; the Beginning and the End. He is also known in Scripture as "I AM," a name insinuating how He is the essence and definer of existence. More descriptions can be found throughout Scripture!

The Book of Genesis. And it's He.

It makes perfect sense. Well, from a Christian perspective; "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be," meaning that there is "worldly thinking" and "godly thinking"; the sinful mind cannot understand godly things. It makes perfect sense in that because of man's defiance bringing death, someone had to pay the price to make things right again; God did that in our stead.

That's just dismissive and, frankly, simply untrue. Even secular historians admit that Christ, the man, existed and died via crucifixion; the question is what did it mean?

Also, what? What on earth did you base that assumption on? The Passion Plays are meant to REENACT--i.e. depict AGAIN and dramatically events that PREVIOUSLY HAPPENED--the events of Christ's death and Resurrection.... o_O

Again, I never said nor ever will say Christianity is "scientifically sound." It is not nor should it be; it is faith, not empiricism!

Abra, I'll respond to your post later! That'll give you something to dread. >:D

"Atheist" works, though it literally means "without God." Just semantics, of course.

Please provide one--just one--coherent, solid example of such "internal conflicts." The stories you previously mentioned I showed fairly clearly not to be such examples.

Sacrifice. God is all about sacrifice. The action, being nailed to the cross, carries with it deep symbolism of self-sacrifice for the service of another (ubiquitous throughout the Old Testament), which was precisely what Christ did. He died in every sense (physically and spiritually) so that people like you and I might live; there is no greater example of compassion (expressing love for another) or mercy (giving generously to the undeserving).

His sacrifice fulfilled prophesy (read: Isaiah 53, for example) perfectly. It was necessary to fulfill His promise to save mankind and to bring us life. It proved God right and provided means to meet man's greatest need: A restored relationship with God.

Such disdain for physical mutilation suggests that you would not wish to experience such a thing yourself (hey, I'm not a fan of blood myself). Imagine pain infinitely worse and long; that is what His actions allowed the human race to be spared from: That should be our torture and anguish, the pain that our recalcitrance against our Maker has earned.

Yes. It is sick--in that it is unfair that an entirely perfect, entirely innocent God died the gruesome death we should have. But He did. And a wise man would ask "why?" (because He loves us) and "what should my response be?" (I am guilty, God is righteous, and I accept what He has done for me).

Plants have a physical function; that seems different from any sort of "awareness." They respond to physical stimuli. In fact, trying to apply "awareness" to such things as trees and grass, things that merely function perfunctorily, seems more like superimposing our own abilities--humans' extraordinary abilities to philosophize and think abstractly (even lower mammals' abilities)--onto things that, as far as anything empirically or scientifically sound, lack them.

Sorry. I did things a bit backwards, Abracadabra. Thanks to Jeanniebean for starting this discussion and to you for your interesting thoughts on science.

I'm not sure if you're using the term "materialists" correctly, though. Don't you mean "Naturalists"? I always thought "materialists" were individuals who focus solely on material (or monetary) gain--affluence--or believe only material objects have value. Maybe "Naturalists" would be a more accurate description, considering your science acumen?

And since your post centered mainly on the scientific side of things, I will attempt to represent--to defend--the theological.

I agree that Christianity is an entirely different category from Naturalism, Atheism, or any secular (and even other religious) views of the world. Christians live and think by faith; Atheists live and think by sight. Christians *believe* the Bible is the Word of God; Atheists *believe* it is mythology.

How-ev-ah (that's right), the Bible does not have internal conflicts--it is not self-contradictory. All these blithe claims of It having contradictions are empty. So, what it seems to come down to, is you either believe it or you do not.

Well, knowing from other contexts God's traits you mentioned--His omniscience, omnipotence, etc.--wouldn't it make more sense to conclude that the "testing" actually is for man's benefit? Not only for Job's benefit--as he learns, in the end, to trust God when everything (literally, everything) has been stripped away--but for the New Testament Christians' and today's Christians' benefit, to disprove again the devil and prove to us again God's righteousness? Of course, God knew Job would stay strong (er, well, survive and NOT curse God, as was what Satan claimed Job would do) until the bitter end; but Satan and mankind did not know that outcome.

Which story from the O.T. are you talking about?

Also, "heathens," by way of their rampant dissension from God and His ways, are in the slow and subtle process of destroying themselves. As you said, God knows man's hearts; therefore, He knows which people would never turn from their ways to Him (like with Pharaoh, who actually had numerous chances to repent, but never did).

God is not merciless. Mankind, when left to its own purposes, is just relentlessly arrogant and (self-)destructive.

And it is quite ironic to call God's mercy--His giving grace and life to those who don't deserve it--foolish. Perhaps "it is."

Yes; gods that are made of straw are easily destroyed.
(I would guess you have heard the term "straw-man argument" before?).

Also, that logic seems a bit absurd in itself. So, if I concoct a Lobster-Centric Religion, venerating the Great Ever-Slippery Crustacean, only in my mind, but never put it in "book form," could it potentially be "true"?

Do "lies" have to be written to be proven "false"?

Ah, so you're at least, in part, a Pantheist, are you? Interesting.

At one point, you said that grass--lo, even rocks--are self-aware? Can you empirically prove that? Otherwise, it could be (and, I daresay, is) more absurd than the intangible God--because it is both illogical and unscientific to state that things that lack a Central Nervous System could be conscious in any biological sense. To say otherwise is to say there exists something supernatural (or "contranatural"? Is there even a word to properly describe sentient rocks?), opening up a whole array of possibilities inconsistent with an avid disbelief in God.

Of course a Pantheist or (pardon my irreverence) Naturalist would answer "yes." God is every (tangible) thing and every (tangible) thing is God.

That's just it: "..God is super natural," above or apart from what is natural; according to the Bible (the Hebrew Bible, in case anyone wants to get "smart"). It would make no sense to prove God, who is spiritual, exists in a physical sense--by empirical methods of observation. In fact, it makes no sense to prove He exists at all; one should approach and know God by faith alone.

"For faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." (Hebrews 11:1)

Good, good. *Touches "staff" (a fallen tree branch) to your head decorously before you leave in all your appropriate obsequiousness*

As it should be, lowly servant.

Don't touch my tail; you'll make it dirty.

Yes, yes, yes. You made an "okay" point. I'll admit it! OKAY?!?!?!

But yes, all I mean is; I really wish ALL of you would spend more time posturing to me with compliments about my exemplary poetic talent, instead of going on these wild and pointless tangents, my slaves! GO!

Well, okay, then. But wouldn't you be sleeping in a tent, still?

Anyway, the point of my epic poem was not "camping" but the darkness that writhes within me! Got it?