Subject:
|
Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Dec 2002 18:25:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1815 times
|
| |
|
|
Since I generally agree with DaveE's comments, I will try to not to repeat
his arguments too much here, assuming you will reply to his post.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Nathan Todd writes:
> First off, since the primary issue here seems to be God's love. I will
> write with assurance he exists. (It is just a waste to debate the character
> of someone while debating their existence in the same post).
Yes, we are debating God's character as presented in the Bible, so in this
context it only makes sense that we talk about him as if he really existed,
whether we actually believe that or not outside of this debate.
> So I am skipping over a long argument about how we didn't all evolve
> from a one celled germ with no brain.
We weren't really debating whether or not God exists, so I think it's best
we ignore what I'm assuming was meant as a passing swipe at the theory of
evolution.
> So:
>
> It all started at creation (please assume this happened while debating
> the character of God, I will willingly discuss his existance later).
So assumed.
> God
> created man but unlike the angles
I don't remember anything in the Bible about God creating the angels, and
whether or not they have free will. The existence of angels seems rather
assumed in the Bible, and we don't learn much more about their nature.
Where does your knowledge of angels and free will come from? Come to think
of it, I don't think there's any mention of free will in the Bible.
> man was created in God's image with free
> will.
For the sake of argument, OK, man has free will.
> God being perfect had created a pure earth and people, however there
> was good and evil all ready (hence the tree).
When you say "already", do you mean good and evil existed before God? Or
before God created Earth? Did God create good and evil?
If so, I wonder why he didn't limit how much evil people can inflict on
others. Doesn't it seem like God could have worked out some system by which
people could choose to *be* evil, but not actually *cause other people to
suffer* (or at least not suffer so much) from it? That way, God could still
properly judge evil people without everyone else having to suffer from it.
It's bothersome how easy it is to come up with a more pleasant system of
free will than the one God set up.
> God was good and always will
> be (please hold your challenge for further down). There was a definet divide
> between him and evil (represented by Satan). I think most people know the
> story of how sin entered mankind and they had to leave the garden.
> Let me clarify God forced them to leave because in his perfection he could
> not 'mix' with or look upon evil.
This is an interesting theory about God -- that he *cannot* (much as he
might wish otherwise, in order to be merciful) 'mix' with or look upon evil.
I don't remember this being explained in the Bible, I'm curious how you got
this understanding of God's nature.
> He made them leave to spare them.
So this is a God who *could not* give Adam & Eve a second chance, even if he
wanted to?
> His
> mercy could not forgive without some offering to clean the sin
That is one severely restricted God, and I don't know if he deserves the
"all-powerful" attribute that we usually give him.
> and without a
> cleansing all evil is consumed in the presence of God (he does not enjoy
> this the way you picture it... It is the result of his perfection and role
> of judge clashing with sin.
So he doesn't enjoy murdering people, he just literally can't help it.
> By fair judging all who have sinned must be
> destroyed, no matter how small the sin.
It's pretty tough to be merciful when those are the rules. Your version of
God is almost pitiable -- he *wants* to be merciful to all us crazy sinners,
but he even he, though he is God, has to play by the rules and smite us
nonetheless. But who made the rules, why were they made like that?
> The only way to overide this is an
> offering of atonement. Which Jesus made once and for all.
The immediate obvious question is: if there was a great solution to this
whole problem of God *having* to smite people, why did God wait so long to
provide it? Why not send Jesus to atone for our sins right after Adam & Eve?
> For the next years man lived on, some making offerings for forgiveness
> and having a relationship with God and some becoming more evil. (Side note:
> Enoch was so close to God he was taken to Heaven without dieing, proof that
> not everyone who came into contact with God was killed as you seem to
> imply.) Eventually they became so evil that God regretted making them, he
> had wanted them to be his friends by free will but instead they had grown
> evil. Despite his love for mankind his role as judge forced him to punish
> the sinners and start again with Noah.
Again, it seems like an earlier Jesus would have been very convenient in
this situation. What took God so long to come up with the whole sending his
son / himself to Earth to get crucified as an atonement for everybody's sin?
> For time sake I will skip ahead to Abraham (Abram) and the *First
> Covenant*. God made the first covenant with Abraham because he was righteous
> as God had intended all men to be. Yes he had sinned but he made offerings
> to make up for this. God's covenant with Abraham was essentually be good as
> I intended so I can be your friend and your childrens friend. Once you were
> evil the covenant had to be withdrawn because God could not be in your
> presence any more.
It would have been nice if the Israelites could have just "withdrawn" from
the covenant. I'm sure that would have saved a lot of lives. But
apparently that wasn't an option. Instead of letting Israel out of the
covenanent, God continually sent brutal punishments against his chosen
people. Wasn't it obvious the Israelites wanted out of the deal? They were
worshipping *other gods*!
> I will deal with your examples of what you feel this time was like
> below. For the record Gentiles were welcome to the covenant. They were by
> definition those outside the covenant.
These last two sentences seem to contradict each other. How can gentiles be
both welcome to the covenant and by-definition outside it?
> God said he would make Abraham a blessing to all the world.
I don't know what means, so I'm not sure how it supports what you are saying.
> Then later, out of love God sent his son Jesus to be the ultimate offering
> and give everyone everywhere a chance to be righteous and live with God.
Putting aside for a moment the question of why God waited so long to do
this, I have never really understood the mechanics of this. God's son is
Jesus, and yet Jesus is God. So God goes to Earth in the form of a man who
eventually suffers the standard Roman punishment for sedition, crucufixion.
How is it that God having himself crucified is an atonement for our sins?
And what really changed after Jesus? You say that now "everyone everywhere
a chance to be righteous and live with God". This was not the case before
Jesus? It seems like both before and after Jesus there were righteous
people and non-righteous people. Was the whole Jesus thing just to make all
those gruesome animal sacrifices unnecessary?
> This was the Second Covenant and it still holds today.
*What* is the Second Covenant?
> It seems to me God
> always had good things planned for us, we just screwed them up. It takes a
> lot of love to die for someone.
But if Jesus was God, and God is not currently dead... who died on the
cross? How hard is it to do anything humans find hard to do when you're God?
I guess I'm assuming you believe, like most modern Christians, that Jesus
*was/is* God. If not, let me know.
> I personaly would find it hard to die so
> that someone else could live. Especially if that person was going to sit
> around 2000 odd years later declaring what a mean git I was (no offence,
> just an illustration).
None taken. But, you know, if I was really, fully, and totally convinced
beyond a shadow of a doubt (as I assume Jesus was) that my suffering and
death would save the lives all humans from now until the end of time, I
don't really think it would be all that hard. In fact, when you think about
it, you'd be have to be one selfish %$^#& to not do it.
> In this new covenant anyone at all could be free of their sins and live in
> God's love by accepting Jesus as the go between. Amazing Grace.
Who couldn't be free of their sins befor Jesus? I thought there was a
system of atonement *before* Jesus. And if even the gentiles were, as you
say, "welcome to the covenant", who was excluded?
> > > God has chosen to have His message spread by a bunch of incompetant, sinful,
> > > *human* followers. I'll certainly give you that.
> >
> > Good choice, God.
>
> Yes it was. If God came down now in all his glory with a heavenly host
> and the ocean dried up and all the mountains fell over, and everyone all
> over the globe could see him at once I would be perty inclined to believe in
> him, what about you?
I'd believe in something, alright. But I certainly wouldn't believe it was
an all-loving or merciful God unless his actions demonstrated it. And
drying up the oceans and knocking over mountains doesn't make for a very
good first impression. @8^)
> But would I love him? I would feel a bit forced into
> something (like how you describe people threating you with damnation except
> with a huge all powerful army thrown in). God wants us to love out of free
> will.
Again, I would love God if he seemed love-able, not just because he is
exists and is more powerful than me. I think God could quite easily prove
his existence to me, and to all mankind, without it compelling us to feel
one way or another about him, and so our free will would be entirely intact.
> Note: find a copy of 'The Screwtape Letters' by C.S. Lewis and read
> it. It is fictional and even if you don't believe in God you'll get a kick
> out of how hell is pictured as a burocracy (spelling). It does however
> explain the free will thing from the eyes of a demon which is remarkably
> very clear!
Note: I'm going to pass on reading 'The Screwtape Letters' by C.S. Lewis,
but you are welcome to try to sum up his argument for me here.
> > That is a very bizarre way for an all-powerful being to go about getting
> > across a message when it would be far simpler, and presumably far more
> > effective for him to just give it to people directly without some
> > incompetent go-betweens garbling it.
>
> Same as Above.
No, giving humans a clear message does not make up their minds for them, it
just gives them the most accurate information to consider when we use our
free will to make up our own minds.
This defense of God intentionally allowing his most important messages about
his own nature and his relationship to humanity to get garbled up by sinful
humans is wholly unconvincing, and if this garbling casts doubt about one
part of the Bible's accuracy, it casts doubt on every part.
> > Imagine that, for some reason, you won't be able to see or have any contact
> > with your young son for the next ten years.
> SNIP This is not a good example because it forgets the free will issue.
Forgets? That was the whole point of it: that free will is not impaired by
having the most accurate information to work with.
> > So I think my point is still valid that if God has some important message
> > for his people, he should not beat around the bush, using incompetent
> > messangers, and revealing pieces of the puzzle over thousands of years, but
> > just come right out and say it clearly and consistently to everyone.
>
> Same as above reasoning on God appearing (more next post)
Perhaps you will have some new light to shed on this in your net post.
> > Why not hit us up with Jesus right from the start? What was up with having
> > a chosen race of people for a few thousand years first? I don't see why an
> > all-knowing God would change his policies over time.
>
> The first covenant was for everyone but only the jews really took him up
> on it (if half heartidly)
The first covenant was for everyone? If the only evidence you have of that
is the passage about Abraham being a "blessing to all nations", I think that
ambiguous phrase is far outweighed by all God's talk throughout the Old
Testament of having the Israelites be *set aside* as God's personal
possession, his chosen people. You can't have a "chosen people" if it's not
an exclusive club. God promises are to Abraham and his descendants. That's
the Jews. Almost all mention of the gentiles in the Old Testament is about
how they are to either be properly avoided or killed.
> > By that logic, I can just as easily claim that Christians don't have to give
> > up their beliefs to accept atheist beleifs. They're not incompatible, you
> > see, it's just different levels of understanding. When they die, Christians
> > will acknowledge that there is no God.
>
> By athiest logic we won't be able to acknowledge anything. For all your
> stubborn warnings you won't even get an 'I told you so' (no offense meant).
The point of this was not to say who's really going to get to say "I told
you so" after death, it was to show the questionable logic by which John was
claiming that Christian beliefs are not incompatible with atheist ones. I'm
not sure what you meant by "stubborn warnings". Have I been making stubborn
warnings? About what?
> Mind you I won't either, when I see God I'll be crying about all the people
> I didn't tell about him. And the ones I did who didn't believe me.
Sounds great. @8^) Don't cry too much on my account.
> As I have said God in his perfection can't live with sin. He loves the
> sinner but hates the sin.
So it's more like, "Love the sinner, destroy the sinner."
> I don't write anything in the Bible off.
It's good to have you as part of this debate, then, offering a very
different take on the Old Testament than John (Neal, not the apostle).
> > > > If God has something to reveal, why on Earth would he deal it out in a
> > > > piecemeal process over thousands of years? He can obviously step in at any
> > > > time and talk directly to individuals or groups of up to a million. If >he's
> > > > got something important to convey, why not just say it to everyone?
>
> Free will again. God doesn't arm twist.
I'm not asking God to twist my arm! Try this analogy: If you wanted to buy
a car, and were deciding between two cars, wouldn't you want all the
information you could get about these two cars? Wouldn't it help you make
the most informed choice if you had all that information presented to you in
clearest, most accurate form possible? Or would you rather base your
decision on some rumor that you heard from a friend of a friend of a friend?
It's not the differnce between having free will or having your arm twisted,
it's the differnce between making an informed decision and making a guess
based on garbled information.
> > Atheists can adopt any set of moral standards, and justify them however they
> > choose. I consider myself amoral, but I generally find that the most
> > pleasing and beneficial strategy for me in my life is to be what most people
> > would consider "nice" and "pleasant to be around".
>
> Hitler thought of himself as a gentleman. Morals are not a choice.
> There is good and bad, live with it. Don't redefine it. (again no offense)
"There is good and bad, live with it" is a not a convincing argument for the
existence of objective morality. Neither is "morals are not a choice". If
you want to make a case for the existence of objective morality, I invite
you to, but I would ask that you start a brand new thread on OTD to
accomodate it.
> > > > But seriously, I don't see this in the Bible. I see God doling out cruel
> > > > punishment after cruel punishment in a mostly arbitrary fashion, failing to
> > > > make good on his promises, and acting so generally reprehensible that no
> > > > sane person could ever consider him worthy of continued existence, much less
> > > > worship.
>
> Closer then I thought...
Hmm? What's closer to what than you thought?
> > 1) Lv 10:1-7
> > Because of a slight irregularity in ritual, God burns Aaron's two sons to a
> > crisp.
>
> God's laws are very clear. What they actually did was revert to sin in
> his prescence which results in instant consumption under the first Covenant
> only perfectly holy people could approach God (meaning no sin since last
> offering.
This is actually pretty decent support for your theory that it is beyond
God's control that Aaron's son's are burnt up.
> > 2) Nb 11:1-3
> > The Israelites complain about the hardships of wandering in the desert.
> > This angers God, and he burns all the complainers to a crisp.
>
> The complaining was a recurring problem.
And that somehow justifies the death penalty for it?
> Under the first covenant there
> was no room for error in obeying God. Complaining was rebelling against God
> which immediately removes you from the covenant.
I don't see how complaining is nearly equivalent to rebllion. I would
normally think the phrase "removes you from the covenant" would mean it
releases both parties from their obligations to each other, but you seem to
use it as a euphamism for "God must therefore kill them in some violent manner".
> > 3) Nb 11:4-35
> > Tired of manna, some of the wandering Israelites long for the taste of meat.
> > Ever thoughtful, Yahweh responds by sending them all the meat they can
> > eat... along with a severe plague which kills them.
>
> More of the same issue as above.
Not exactly the same. You could have maybe argued that in the previous
examples, God's burning them to death was in some small way humane if it was
an instant, pain-free death. But here, God is sending a plague on his own
people, which seems far more cruel and unusual. God's motto now becomes
"Love the sinner, yet torture the sinner."
> > 4) Nb 12:1-15
> > Moses's brother Aaron and sister Miriam both criticize Moses for marrying a
> > non-Israelite (something God generally forbids, and so a seemingly valid
> > criticism). Angered, God punishes Miriam with leprosy for seven days, while
> > Aaron gets off scott free.
>
> We don't understand all that was in thier minds but the problem here
> seems to be jealousy of Moses and his relationship with God. Moses, the
> bible tells us, was very humble and this seems like an attack at another
> issue.
If the real issue is jealousy, the story is not told very clearly.
> I have always personally thought that Miriam was the main culprit and
> brought Aron because she dared not challeng Moses alone.
I see no evidence of that. Anybody can just make-up extra-biblical stuff to
try to justify God's arbitrary punishment system. We could just as well
suppose that Miriam had had eaten pork earlier that day, but if you just go
by the Bible's report of the story, I don't see how you can argue that God's
punishment is not both arbitrary (in smiting Miriam but not Aaron) and
inconsistent (God himself forbids the Israelites to marry foreign women).
And what's with the leprosy? That doesn't really go along with your theory
of sin becoming immediately destroyed in the presence of God. If that were
the case, wouldn't both Aaron and Miriam have instantly been burnt up as
soon as they were in God's presence?
> > 5) Nb 16:1-35
> > Questioning the fairness of Aaron and Moses holding special positions of
> > authority over the rest of God's chosen people, a group of 250 Israelite men
> > non-violently challenge Aaron and Moses. God responds to this by first
> > attacking the families of the rebels (women and children first!), swallowing
> > them all into the earth. After that, God sends his fire to burn all 250
> > rebels to a crisp.
>
> I think your rendering of this is very unfair. Non-violently? vs 19,
> why would he assemble the people? He was out to depose Moses and take over.
No, Korah assembles his people because Moses had just told him to right
before that in vs 16. Nowhere in the story does it portray Korah and his
followers as violent, or planning violence. In vs 3, he issues a
non-violent oral challenge to Moses's authority. The only violence in this
story is God's, and there's plenty of it.
> He was
> jealous and greedy and in no condition to show he was holier.
I don't know how you can claim to know Korah's motivations if they are not
given in the Bible. Perhaps he just came to the realization that while
under Moses's leadership, thousands and thousands of Israelites had already
been killed by God, and he thought a change might do them good.
> God defended
> his choice by a test of holiness.
God gives a test of holiness? I must have missed that. *Moses* sets up a
test, which is basically, "if God likes me more than them, he will kill the
families of all of Korah's followers". Then God kills all the families of
the followers. I'm not sure what sort of test of holiness that is.
> As to the women and childern, I don't see
> where you get your dramatic first but I believe they were punished for not
> speaking out against their husbands and fathers and and some cases maybe
> supporting them or even inspiring them. They commited the same sins as the men.
Once again, it is left open to speculation why it is that God is punishing
people who are not to blame for the sin at hand. You speculate that they
must have committed some other sins; I speculate that God is happy to punish
whomever he pleases, whether or not they have sinned. In support of my
speculation is that in vs 20-27, God is ready to kill *all the Israelites*
(except Moses and Aaron) for the sins of one man until Moses talks him down,
and God agrees to only kill the families of the rebels and then the rebels
themselves.
It's much the same in the Golden Calf story which I am currently
illustrating. God is determined to kill *all* the Israelites until Moses
talks him out of it, and he does so only by convincing God that he'd look
foolish in the eyes of the Egyptians if he brought his people out into the
desert only to kill them. Of course, then Moses himself then immediately
orders the death of 3,000 of his fellow Israelites.
> Please not that Moses pleads as on many other ocassions with God for the
> people on the wnole.
>
> > 6) Nb 16:41-50
> > When people complain that the deaths of the 250 rebels was wrongful, God
> > sends a plague on the sympathizers. Aaron has to intercede to curb God's
> > wrath, and succeeds, but only after 14,700 are dead.
>
> More rebellion, open and in numbers. Also false accusations, hatrid and
> many other sins. Please remeber all sins carry the death penalty unless some
> atonement is made, before Jesus' final offering God could not postpone
> judgement in hope that they would change if he was present. Also note Moses
> and Aron's attempts to save people.
Ah! Here at last we have the usefulness of Jesus! So what Jesus did was to
*postpone* judgement? But it doesn't really seem like judgement was all
that swift before Jesus showed up. I mean, sure, in the above examples God
kills a *lot* of people, but there is plenty of sin recorded in the Bible
that is not atoned for, and which is not punished by immediate death (or
torture), and one can only guess that there was lots and lots more sinning
going on than just what was recorded. Or do you believe that God actually
used to smite every last sinner during their lifetimes before Jesus came along?
> > 7) Nb 21:4-9
> > Again the Israelites complain about their life in the desert. This time God
> > sends venemous snakes to attack the complainers, many are killed, and only
> > the action of Moses prevents further deaths at God's hands.
>
> Same as the other complaints. vs 5 'The people spoke against God' they
> complained and lied to his face!
Complaining, yes -- and with just cause, I would say -- but where do you get
"lied to his face"?
And what a bizarre story! Does God tire of his usual burning people to
death, so that he has to get creative, sending venemous snakes against his
people?
> > 8) Nb 25:1-15
> > In a strong show of support for multiculturalism, God calls for the impaling
> > of all Israelites who have chosen to worship a different god. 24,000
> > Israelites are killed, and afterward, God reserves special praise for a man
> > who ran his spear right through a man and a woman as they were having sex.
>
> This is wrong and against God's commands.
What kind of God has to *command* people to worship him? And then *kills*
them when they don't? When you want someone to like you, is it more
effective to *command* them to like you and punish them for not liking you,
or is it better to just be so darn nice they can't help but like you?
> It was blatent Ridicule of God
> who had done so much for them.
What had he really done for them? They were wandering in a desert for
years, and occasionally, as in this instance, were without adequate water.
God had promised them all a land of milk and honey, but refused to fulfil
his promise to them, and in fact none of them would ever live to see that
promise fulfilled, so as far they were concerned it *wasn't* fulfilled. In
the meantime, God is killing off the Israelites left and right. Who
*wouldn't* want out of that relationship? The only reason not to complain
was out of fear.
> There is only one God.
Or so Yahweh would have you believe.
> > 9) Dt 7:1-6 & 20:16-17
> > One example of God giving, in the most explicit of terms, the command for
> > the Israelites to carry out multiple instances of genocides.
>
> In these cases the israelites were carring out God's judgement. Fair
> judgement without the blood of Jesus or a sacrifice of the day.
So every single person (and animal!) whose death God called for was an
unrepenant sinner. What evidence do you have of that? What sins had the
infants of the Jesubites committed, for example?
> > 10) 1 S 15:1-34
> > God once again orders the destruction of all "men and women, children and
> > infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys" of one of the Israelites'
> > neighboring peoples. The newly crowned King Saul is responsible for
> > carrying out this order, but he doesn't quite get it right, because he is so
> > bold as to spare the life of one man -- the neighboring tribe's king.
> > Because of this, God says that he regrets having ever made Saul king of
> > Israel. The neighboring king, whose life was spared, is then brought to the
> > prophet Samuel, who promptly butchers him.
>
>
> Your bit about Saul is misrepresented. He spared the king to gloat over him
> not out of mercy. Besides that same as above.
I didn't conjecture as to why Saul spared the man, I just said he boldly
spared one man. I don't know see any evidence for your conjecture that Saul
intended to gloat over the spared king, so again you are attempting to make
God's actions look more just by adding extra-biblical sins to those who God
punishes.
Has God become too lazy send his own fire down upon the Amalekites, and now
needs the Israelites to do it for him? Again, even if, according to your
theory, God *is forced to* destory sinners, why does he keep changing how
the destroying is done?
> > Any *one* of the above examples is enough to convict God in my book, and
> > there are plenty more examples I could give. There is nothing in the New
> > Testament that denies the accuracy of these stories or the Old Testament as
> > a whole, and in fact, it is appealed to by Jesus and the apostles as
> > authoritative.
>
> Try all the examples of mercy despite the need for judgement in the
> Old Testemant.
I thought you said God *couldn't* be merciful in the face of the need for
judgment (in the Old Testament). If he *could* be merciful despite the need
for judgment, and repeatedly is not merciful (as the above examples show),
he is back to being a cruel and unusual God, which is my whole point.
> > > > By having his son/self get crucified by the Romans. Somehow I don't feel
> > > > reconciled.
>
> God shed his blood as the one pure sacrifice that could stop the
> judgement you are complaining about and you... complain (again no offense).
So God sacrificed himself to himself? And this somehow (and I really don't
understand how) is a loophole in the system (which God created in the first
place) which has the result of postponing the judgment of sinners until
after they are dead?
Wonderful. Can I take my judgment now? And I don't want God to act through
some intermediary like an invading Israelite army, I want the full-on fire
from heaven smiting. Or do I not even have that option nowadays? Did Jesus
take away my right to a speedy trial?
> > You see it as amazing, I see it as silly.
>
> I'm glad!
I thought you were going to cry for me in heaven because I didn't convert?
> > And the whole forgiving the people who crucified him doesn't really jibe
> > with the portrait of God from the Old Testament, and since there's a lot
> > more evidence on that side, it's hard for me to think of the Biblical God as
> > anything like forgiving.
>
> Do you have any evidence that from the cross he called down fire on his
> killers?
Well, there was a big earthquake. That might have killed some people. @8^)
But no, I was saying that, sure, Jesus/God really does seem to forgive his
killers (at least in one of the gospels), but that there is so much contrary
evidence in the Old Testament that God is not in the least bit merciful or
forgiving, that this one instance of forgiveness is dwarfed. Besides, if
Jesus is God, he didn't really even die!
> > > > *Our* imperfections? No, the human imperfections are not what I consider
> > > > the dark side of Bible. It's *God's* imperfections that are so disturbing
> > > > to me. It may be the Israelites who carry out a genocide on their
> > > > neighbors, but it is God who routinely commands it of them. It is God who
> > > > continually smites his own "chosen people" for the smallest perceived
> > > > offences, and God who routinely punishes innocents for other people "sins".
>
> Yes we deserve judgement God does not. He has only judged fairly. But
> it pained him so he sent his son to die to be the loop hole in the system so
> that his love could come forth.
Out of curiosity, did God create the system in which he later exploited a
loophole?
> Christianity requires faith. I can't make you believe it I can only defend
> what I have accepted as, and is, true. (no offense!)
>
> God Bless you!
I'm assuming you read Dave Schuler's comments about the innapropriateness of
your closing your posts (particularly ones aimed at me) in this manner in
the context of a debate about the nature of God, so I am now forced to take
your continued use of "God Bless you!" (now emphasized with an exclation
point) as tantamount to you thumbing your nose at me. I don't appreciate
it, and will not continue to debate you if this sort of thing continues.
Also, the "what I have accepted as, *and is*, true" comes off as, "oh, and
by the way, even if my arguments aren't particularly convincing to you, just
remember, the important thing is: I'm right, and you're wrong". Not the
most civil way to sign off.
-Rev. Smith
|
|
Message has 5 Replies:
 | | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Brendan Powell Smith writes: <snip lotsa good stuff!> (...) I agree with your stance on the 'thumbing of the nose' that the 'God bless you' and, as such, it really shouldn't be said in this thread, or directed at RBPS or (...) (22 years ago, 5-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| (...) I can't resist a little self-promotion, since The Rev's views are so nicely compatible with mine (irrefutable proof of his brilliance, if you ask me). I voiced a similar question here a while back, but the thread was huge and I never got a (...) (22 years ago, 5-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| (...) I will assume you read that reply. SNIP (...) I always took the creation of angels as implied. 'In the beggining God...' (No mention of angels) 'created heaven and earth' (I always put them in the heaven stage that isn't really described in (...) (22 years ago, 7-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| Massive SNIP (Read my first reply for these sections). (...) This is the key to any debate on God's love. As it was his greatest act of love. I will deal with your 3 points in order: 1) The mechanics: Think of a 3 leaf clover, the leaf's being God, (...) (22 years ago, 10-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| SNIP of unprecedented preportions. Since this debate has almost trailed off and I don't forsee either side convincing the other I'll just say one last thing. I think the greatest proof of God's existence, and love, are the millions of people that (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| First off, since the primary issue here seems to be God's love. I will write with assurance he exists. (It is just a waste to debate the character of someone while debating their existence in the same post). So I am skipping over a long argument (...) (22 years ago, 5-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
205 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
