Greensboring.com | Greensboro, NC

Re: SFI Bible Study - part 19

2012-02-08T07:19:54+00:00

I cant find the bible reference, is it Deuteronomy 11? I left my bible by the side of the road a long time ago. He tied his ass to a tree.... Another awful joke from my cult childhood: Who was the first carpenter? Eve she made Adam's banana stand.
https://twitter.com/#!/RustyBertrand

Statistics: Posted by Guest — Wed Feb 08, 2012 7:19 am

Re: SFI Bible Study - part 19

2008-09-08T16:20:58+00:00

A Person wrote:
Maybe God should've got a better lawyer to write the bible. It's very easy to rationalize what it says to match what you want it to mean when it's full of so many ambiguous and contradictory sayings.

The bible says "We should emulate god" but that has to be interpreted as only by imitiating the nice things that god does, killing children for making fun of old baldy is not nice, so don't imitiate that bit.

Contextual misapplication to the fullest. But its expected of skeptics. It sure makes for good discussions at the UC.

Statistics: Posted by Guest — Mon Sep 08, 2008 4:20 pm

Re: SFI Bible Study - part 19

2008-09-08T16:16:49+00:00

Maybe God should've got a better lawyer to write the bible. It's very easy to rationalize what it says to match what you want it to mean when it's full of so many ambiguous and contradictory sayings.

The bible says "We should emulate god" but that has to be interpreted as only by imitiating the nice things that god does, killing children for making fun of old baldy is not nice, so don't imitiate that bit.

Statistics: Posted by A Person — Mon Sep 08, 2008 4:16 pm

Re: SFI Bible Study - part 19

2008-09-08T15:40:47+00:00

SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:
You know, in Ephesians 5:1, it commands Christians to imitate God. So if God is completely without moral restraint, and can kill babies while still being equated with "love"...

Need I complete the syllogism here?

You have GOT to be kidding me. Surely you don't interpret the passage that way? Purposely misinterpretation is lying and this type of lying is the worst.

Statistics: Posted by Guest — Mon Sep 08, 2008 3:40 pm

Re: SFI Bible Study - part 19

2008-09-08T13:06:23+00:00

SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:
You know, in Ephesians 5:1, it commands Christians to imitate God. So if God is completely without moral restraint, and can kill babies while still being equated with "love"...

Need I complete the syllogism here?

Now there's a real conundrum isn't it? The bible commands them to imitate their god, but lo and behold when they do(in the more violent OT ways) they are summarily convicted of transgressing against man's laws and punished to the full extent (sometimes) of said law. Sounds like they're caught between a rock and a hard place does it not?

Statistics: Posted by Guest — Mon Sep 08, 2008 1:06 pm

Re: SFI Bible Study - part 19

2008-09-08T12:54:04+00:00

RebelSnake wrote:
IgnoranceIsBliss wrote:
The child was put on earth by God, and then so taken. That was the child's purpose. God is GOD. He can do what he wants, and we are not to say if it be just, because it always is.

Very interesting. So it's "just" simply because your god says it is, okay then. It seems like your god has two sets of rules. One set for himself and another set for everyone else. This particular passage is an excellent example of this. Your saying here that this "child's" sole purpose was for your god to kill him. A most excellent example of a post-natal abortion if I ever saw one. If people do this prison is the likely result. Ah, but lo and behold if your god does it it's a part of his mysterious plan that we insignificant humans are incapable of fathoming. Logic based, reasoning people call this "rationalizing". That way god can break all his own rules and still be "just", simply because he says so.

You know, in Ephesians 5:1, it commands Christians to imitate God. So if God is completely without moral restraint, and can kill babies while still being equated with "love"...

Need I complete the syllogism here?

Statistics: Posted by SouthernFriedInfidel — Mon Sep 08, 2008 12:54 pm

Re: SFI Bible Study - part 19

2008-09-08T12:39:23+00:00

IgnoranceIsBliss wrote:
The child was put on earth by God, and then so taken. That was the child's purpose. God is GOD. He can do what he wants, and we are not to say if it be just, because it always is.

Very interesting. So it's "just" simply because your god says it is, okay then. It seems like your god has two sets of rules. One set for himself and another set for everyone else. This particular passage is an excellent example of this. Your saying here that this "child's" sole purpose was for your god to kill him. A most excellent example of a post-natal abortion if I ever saw one. If people do this prison is the likely result. Ah, but lo and behold if your god does it it's a part of his mysterious plan that we insignificant humans are incapable of fathoming. Logic based, reasoning people call this "rationalizing". That way god can break all his own rules and still be "just", simply because he says so.

Statistics: Posted by Guest — Mon Sep 08, 2008 12:39 pm

Re: SFI Bible Study - part 19

2008-09-08T12:04:26+00:00

IgnoranceIsBliss wrote:
The child was put on earth by God, and then so taken. That was the child's purpose. God is GOD. He can do what he wants, and we are not to say if it be just, because it always is.

So God is under no moral obligation to treat his creations in any particular way, is that what you contend? If God has no morality, how can you judge that his actions are "just"? The Bible says that "God is love," but how can you square that with a being that creates babies only for the purpose of killing them "to teach a lesson"? That is totally alien to any definition of "love" that I have ever encountered.

Statistics: Posted by SouthernFriedInfidel — Mon Sep 08, 2008 12:04 pm

Re: SFI Bible Study - part 19

2008-09-06T02:35:39+00:00

IgnoranceIsBliss wrote:
The child was put on earth by God, and then so taken. That was the child's purpose. God is GOD. He can do what he wants, and we are not to say if it be just, because it always is.

That's a convenient excuse. If I acted like God I'd be executed by the state. God's an asshole, and by example shows he is pro- choice.

Statistics: Posted by Nfidel — Sat Sep 06, 2008 2:35 am

Re: SFI Bible Study - part 19

2008-09-05T21:58:00+00:00

SouthernFriedInfidel wrote:
Second, Nathan, speaking for God, says that David's sin has already been "put away." I thought for a moment that God sure was treating his pet king rather lightly.

Third, we see that the old blood-and-thunder god of the Torah is going to insist on having his form of "justice," making a baby die in the place of the guilty.

Comments?

After the story of the poor man and the rich man...

2Sa 12:5-And David's anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, [As] the LORD liveth, the man that hath done this [thing] shall surely die:

2Sa 12:6-And he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.

2Sa 12:10-Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thine house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife.

2Sa 12:11-Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give [them] unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun.

2Sa 12:12-For thou didst [it] secretly: but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.

David had already cursed himself. He was punished fourfold, he lost four sons. I think, that is punishment enough. God promised alot of heartache, you seemed to have uh... skipped it.

The child was put on earth by God, and then so taken. That was the child's purpose. God is GOD. He can do what he wants, and we are not to say if it be just, because it always is.

Statistics: Posted by Guest — Fri Sep 05, 2008 9:58 pm