Part 29 of Post Your Tough Questions Regarding Christianity

Babies are not evil with the exception of the Amalekite. Please be specific.
Unlike the Amalekite the instructions from God was spedific. But for Pro Choice they target babies as you are claiming abortion targets every babies.

 

So killing the Egyptian children was evil, as was killing the children during the Flood, and God must have given an evil command when he told the Israelites to kill Midianite children.

 

Lets start with one.

Matthew 22:29-33New American Standard Bible (NASB)

29 But Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not [a]understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. 31 But regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God: 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.” 33 When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at His teaching.

Clearly referring to God as some entity other than himself.

 

Uh, thousands of other religions are still around too, genius. Many of them older than Christianity.

 

Amalekite babies were not the only babies that the Israelites killed. They also killed babies in all the towns of King Sihon who was not Amalekite.

The Bible does not claim the Amalekite babies were evil ? Why then do you ?

It is not the bad fruit that makes up justifications to kill babies in the name of God ? Is that not what ISIS is doing ?

 

WarRen quote

Several times in the Bible we read that God ordered men, women and children and nursing children (Babies)nmto be killed. Many Christian sites acknowledge this with various excuses as to why. One reason given is that they might grow up bad, and it's not so bad because all small children go to heaven anyway. Perhaps that applies to the unborn feotus.

As to abortion. Did you know that abortion was practised at least as far back as 1550BCE in Egypt. (Ebers Papyrus.) It's nothing new.

 

If you really studied church history you would have to come to the conclusion that without the church there would be no Jesus.

Yep, I'm a proud American.

 

You believe in "demons"?

So you have read the bible and you are still a believer?
Incredible!! The reason I am not is because I read the bible. The sex, murder and mayhem were just too much. And you revere this tripe.

 

The Noah's flood was to kill evil. The killing of Egyptian first born was a respond to Pharaoh's dare against God.
According to the Bible "Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Take full vengeance for the sons of Israel on the Midianites".it is clear that the Midiantes had committed atrocities against the Israelite that is why the gospel was clear "take vengeance". Again you can see the targeted attacks not discriminate attacks such as Pro Choice or ISIS attacking anyone and everyone for Pro Choice anyone have the right to kill babies not God.

 

You placed a value on the scripture when you said that it was "too much", then you turn around in the very next sentence and say that it has not value. Well obviously it had some value, the value necessary to convince you that you wanted no part of such things as were talked about in the 'Bible'. amazing.

 

I should have clarified by saying that he was casting out demons according to the Bible. I would prefer to have this be a theory discussion with little personal belief embattlement.

I would be curious to see what you mean by "too much", though. Could you please elaborate? It'd be interesting to hear your views.

 

Kind of, but not really. I can see how you got to your conclusion, but I don't think I agree with it.

It is true that he refers to God in the third person here, but notice the beginning of verse 32. He quotes God saying, "I am the God of Abraham." Abraham was incredibly honored in the Jewish culture, especially by the Pharisees. Elsewhere in the New Testament, you can see them taking pride in being the "sons of Abraham". Both the titles "God of Abraham" and "I AM" were used by God to refer to himself very often in the Old Testament. Which makes John 8:58 interesting, in which Jesus claims "Before Abraham was, I AM." He very clearly claimed to be above Abraham, using a term that was strictly used to refer to God. The term was held in such high regard that when a scribe would write it, they would have to change pens and clothes after doing so to mark how sacred it was. That one statement was enough to get the Pharisees to try to stone him on the spot.

I know that this reply was not exactly a refutation of what you said, mainly because I don't yet know enough to refute that specifically. But there are several clear instances when Jesus did claim to be God, and it was also claimed about him by others. Like John 1: "The Word was with God, and the Word was God."

 

Indeed because atheism could not disprove God.

 

Via LOGIC.....something that cannot be proven to exists also cannot be proven NOT TO EXIST!!!

PROBABILITY....if another matter altogether.

I cannot with 100% Certainty Prove that a 500 Foot Long Monster with Godzillas Body and with the face of Jerry Falwell's Face does not exist swimming in the vast Ocean Depths.

Neither can I with 100% Certainty PROVE a 500 Foot Long Moster with Godzillas Body and with the face of Jerry Falwell DOES EXIST swimming in the vast depths of the Earth's Oceans.

BUT....using what is known and using scientific data of what is most likely possible and least likely possible I can CALCULATE PROBABILITY!!!

And of course Probability dictates an EXTREMELY LOW PERCENTAGE that such a Jerry Falwell Faced Monster exists.

Same thing with calculating the Probability a GOD exists.

And the CHANCES GO UP the less such a GOD is soley defined by existing religious ideologies.

AboveAlpha

 

There is no doubt that there exist no Godzilla at the same logic dictates that one can not disprove something that is real specially when what they are trying disprove has overwhelming actual evidences of history and science that is why they can not disprove God.

 

To disprove something is real you first have to prove that it is real. There is no proof or you would have shown it to prove God is real.

 

Take vengence . . . for the things their ANCESTORS had done long ago. So you are changing your mind again? First you said it was always wrong to kill babies. Then you said that it was only okay to kill Amalekite babies. Now you are saying it is only okay to kill Amalekite babies and Midianite babies. Oh, and it is okay to kill babies if someone double dog dares you to prove your power, apparently.

No one here has tried to justify the killing of babies except ion. And I'm sure ISIS believes that their killing is "targeted" as well and that they are destroying "evil". If the events of the Bible actually happened, there is no way to distinguish between the atrocities of ISIS and the atrocities of God, except to say that God is far more bloodthirsty.

 

There is just too much sex, murder and mayhem in that book to be anything of spiritual value. Further, this "loving god" orders genocide be committed by his "chosen". If he was so powerful that he could create the Universe, why could he not just zap all those people that he didn't like into nothingness?

 

'Kind of, but not really'? What does that mean?

Yes, Jesus is quoting God, with the "I am" statements. It is clear he is quoting God and not himself. A clear distinction that God and he are not the same being. And makes even clearer next by saying, 'He is not the God.....".

I am almost 100% certain that Jesus never claims 1 time to clearly state he and God are the same being.
But as I stated, many many times is referring to God as another being.

 

Another classic example of you making something up that a poster never said. Just like another poster does continuously.
Please show exactly where the poster said what you are claiming the poster to say in the 'very next sentence'.

 

What does that have to do with what I said or what you said?

 

He first said that it was 'too much' and then said it was 'tripe'. Too conflicting terms. "too much" assigns value and 'tripe' says 'no value'. Get the picture now?

 

There's far too much rubbish posted on here. It has no value as far as the topic of the thread is concerned. It's just tripe.

By the way in this educated country (UK) we use TWO for an numerical amount - not TOO.

 

I should have been clearer. I meant that your interpretation was close, but not quite what the Bible teaches.

After having given it some thought, I realized that you're actually right. As far as I know, Jesus never claimed that he and God were the same person. Because here's the thing: they're not.

Now, before people start jumping on me as reversing my position, let me explain myself. Jesus never claimed to be the same person as God the Father. He refers to the Father as a separate person from himself. So you are right, dairyair. But Jesus very clearly puts himself in the same category as the Father is.

As I referenced somewhere earlier in this thread, in the Great Commission, Jesus told the disciples to baptize people "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." This is one of the verses that sets the foundation for the church doctrine of the Trinity. The three persons of the Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are separate persons, but they are all God. This is a confusing concept that no one can claim to fully understand (least of all me), but I have heard several analogies attempt to describe it.

For example, take a chicken egg. The egg can be shown to have three parts: the shell, the white, and the yolk. Each of these parts of the egg is separate from the other parts, but it is clear that you cannot have a whole egg without the parts, and that all the parts are part of the same egg.

Now, someone later on may reference something Jesus said in John 14:28: "The Father is greater than I." Several point to this as proof that Jesus never claimed to be part of the Godhead. But a closer look makes that invalid. The Greek word translated "greater" ("meizon") in this verse does not mean "greater" in the sense of a state of higher being. It means greater in the sense of authority. For example, Jesus used the word meizon when he said that "No servant is greater than his master". Jesus was of course not teaching that the servant is a lower being than the master, merely that the servant has no authority over the master.

In the case of the verse, Jesus was under the authority of the Father during his time on earth. He humbled himself by taking on the form of a man (Philippians 2:6). In the verse, he was telling his disciples that he would be returning to his Father soon. He told them, "If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I." He was returning to reclaim his heavenly authority.

So, you were right, dairyair. Jesus never claimed to be the same person as God, but He did claim to be on God's level.

 

According to the Bible, those peoples that He commanded "genocide" on were far from innocent. In some cities like Sodom and Gomorrah, not even one righteous person could be found apart from Lot and his family. In Deuteronomy 7:4, God told the people of Israel that the unrighteous cities would lead them astray and discredit God's name.

I am unequipped to answer for most of these questions, since I have not done adequate research on the subject.