Renewing my evil god challenge

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: charles1952

Its not blindness Sir Charles... Its misunderstanding the sly trick question...

He's looking for a verse that commands Christians to kill that can be found in the bible...

A book which consists of two "testaments" the OLD and the NEW...

HE will reject anything that tells followers of the OLD to kill... yet still claim it is Gods word, but he wasn't talking to Christians...

Going by the NEW a verse can not be found obviously... but the evidence is abundant in the OLD...

SO either God changed his attitude with the introduction of Jesus... OR The OT isn't God...

Yet the OP also claims the OT God is the same as Jesus... which simply doesn't make sense all things considered...

The problem is the OP claims Both the OLD and the NEW are Gods words... and the books says God doesn't change...

SO... IF this is the same God, he does change.... OR... He is still a ruthless tyrant, which we can find no evidence of in the NT... aside from revelation perhaps...

Don't forget the fact that these old scriptures and old instructions are still good enough to prohibit abortion and gay marriage in the 20th century, but apparently don't count in this setting.

And of course these are the same people who tell us that we can't pick and choose from the bible...

Oh the irony of it all...

a reply to: Akragon

Dear Akragon,

Nice to see your smiling face again. I appreciate you questing attitude, intellect, love of logic, and honesty. It is such a pleasant relief from the trend of this thread.

But I have to confess to a certain confusion. You know what the OP is asking for, a verse commanding modern western Christians to kill, rape, pillage, and plunder.

You point out, with honesty and directness not found among many:

Going by the NEW a verse can not be found obviously... but the evidence is abundant in the OLD...

OK, fine. We've come to the point where the anti-OP position is that there are many verses in the Old Testament that command modern, western Christians to rape, pillage, kill and plunder.

To be honest that makes my eyebrows go up. (And, if you knew my eyebrows, you would know that that is a sight worth seeing.) Am I correct in saying your position, and that of others, is "There are verses in the OT that command those terrible things IF you assume that the instructions God gave to one group of people 3,000 years ago are the same instructions we are to follow today."

That's an interesting position. Now then, you have two tasks instead of one. You have to find a verse commanding death, etc. AND you have to show that it applies to modern western Christians. Can you? I suppose it is possible, as some have, to just assert it with no proof. The "logical" argument being used has at least one massive hole.

It seems to be:

1.) God's nature doesn't change.
2.) God told the ancient Israelites to smite a country.
3.) Therefore, God is commanding us to smite countries.

Dear Akragon, if someone presented that to you, I would hope you would at least criticize the logic, no matter how much you agreed with the position.

(The corollary to that is that God is telling all people to smite countries and that God is demanding a universal war to the last man. You admit that the New Testament says nothing of the kind. Therefore, the OT commands ARE different than the NT commands, therefore the position that you are proposing has been shown to be false, before you even try to defend it. "Not as wide as a church door, nor deep as a well, but 'twill serve.") (Further, if the claim is that God is only giving instructions to His followers, once again you must admit that God is giving different instructions to different groups of people, followers v. non-followers.)


But, in a spirit of fairness, I'll let you offer your proof that God cannot issue different instructions to different people in different situations.

Prove that, pick out your OT verse, THEN we'll have something to talk about.

With respect,
Charles1952

Nvm

a reply to: charles1952

The problem here brother is that there is a logical fallacy in this entire argument of the OPs

The OT is not a Christian book... Christ was not incarnate before the NT...

The OT is accepted by Christianity because the roots of that religion stem from Judaism...

Moreover... the OT is found between the same cover as the NT...

But, in a spirit of fairness, I'll let you offer your proof that God cannot issue different instructions to different people in different situations.

Prove that, pick out your OT verse, THEN we'll have something to talk about.

I don't need the OT to prove that.... God is love... Correct?

Find a verse in the OT that proves this God is love... It may be his/her/its claim, but where is the evidence of it?

Is conquering and destroying love in any way shape or form?

And saying, well its God, he can do as he wishes.... Or even God works in mysterious ways, OR we can not know the mind of God... Will not cut it for an answer.... We can know God through his Son...

And we do know Jesus would not command anyone to do these things...

His followers even asked him once if he was going to rain fire down on people.... And he was pissed at the very idea...

a reply to: Akragon

You have fun with these chuckleheads. I'm giving up. This was a bull# thread anyway. I just wish they were more honest.

originally posted by: Akragon
His followers even asked him once if he was going to rain fire down on people.... And he was pissed at the very idea...

I brought that up earlier today. That would have been a curse. Jesus wanted no part of his followers calling down hellfire upon others. Jesus is the exact opposite of the Old Testament 'God'.

ATS Thread - Lets Talk About Curses

a reply to: FlyersFan

Right! And, Jesus also said that he didn't want any sacrifice, yet the God of the OT LOVED sacrifices of all kinds! Remember Jephthah?

Widespread worship of the god Baal plagues Israel, and Gideon’s son Abimelech serves a violent three-year reign as Israel’s king. His tyrannical reign ends when a woman throws a millstone on Abimelech’s head. Pressured by the Philistines from the east and the Ammonites from the west, Israel turns from its idol worship and God selects a new judge, Jephthah, the son of a prostitute, to challenge the Ammonites.

Jephthah promises God that, if he is victorious, he will sacrifice to God the first thing that comes out of his house the day he returns from battle. Upon devastating the Ammonites, Jephthah returns home to see his daughter emerge from his house, dancing, to greet him. Jephthah laments his promise, but his daughter encourages him to remain faithful to God, and Jephthah kills the virgin girl.
www.sparknotes.com...

Yeah, I"ll bet his daughter said, Oh well, you promised God, better kill me! /sarc

a reply to: Akragon

Dear Akragon,

Reaching agreement with you is like panning for gold. It doesn't work all that often, but it is really worth trying for. I have, as I've mentioned, a lot of respect for your mental processes. We seem to be missing each other badly. We don't have disagreement, we have misunderstanding. Please be patient as I try to find a place where we can get on the same tracks together.

The problem here brother is that there is a logical fallacy in this entire argument of the OPs

He's not making any sort of argument in the OP, any more than saying "Fill my tank" to a gas station attendant is an argument. He's simply asking us to find a verse which meets a few conditions.

The OT is not a Christian book... Christ was not incarnate before the NT...

The OT is accepted by Christianity because the roots of that religion stem from Judaism...

Moreover... the OT is found between the same cover as the NT...

I'm not entirely sure of the importance of this, I'm probably missing something. I think the OP is asking us to take down any book that says "Holy Bible" on the cover, whether we call it Christian or pagan, and look in it for the required verse.

I don't need the OT to prove that.... God is love... Correct?

Find a verse in the OT that proves this God is love... It may be his/her/its claim, but where is the evidence of it?

All right, let me back up. Pick out your verse, Old or New Testament, I don't care. If it's Old Testament, it's probable (although not certain) that it was given to a specific people at a specific time in a particular situation.

The OP wants a verse that applies to a modern Western Christian, so after you've picked out the verse, you still have to show that it applies to the OP, and not just a certain people a long time ago.

Do we at least understand each other this far? We can go further in our next set of posts, but I'd like to see if we're together to this point.

Thank you for talking with me about this. I have every hope we'll reach understanding at the end of this path.

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: charles1952

Perhaps I can explain it differently...

Regardless of the time or the people involved, or what this "god" was trying to establish waaaay back then...

He/she/it was not powerful enough to accomplish anything throughout those years without violence...

Everything came a the tip of a sword... and even in some cases the very hand of this "god" if we are to believe the exodus story... It took thousands, if not millions of lives... Including the destruction of the entire planet if we are to believe Noah...

When the true God of creation was introduced...

It took ONE man to change the world.... and no weapons!

a reply to: Akragon

Dear Akragon,

This thread has already assumed mythic proportions in my mind. I can understand not finding common ground with AfterInfinity, but with you? How can I be involved in a discussion containing so much misunderstanding? What am I doing wrong?

It seems you are saying that the God of the Old Testament is not the same as the God of the New Testament. If I recall, you have expressed that position before. Please allow me to take the radical step of saying, that for this post, I will accept that your contention is entirely correct, and logically proven beyond doubt. OK?

My questions now are "So what?" and "Why are you agreeing with the OP so quickly?" Let me explain.

You say that the God of the Old Testament is a false god. All right, then the sayings of a false god are binding on no one whatsoever. There is, therefore, no verse in the Old Testament binding a modern Christian to do anything.

In order to find a verse that meets the OP's requirements, we have to find a New Testament verse that commands modern Christians to kill, rape, pillage, or burn. As you have said in an earlier post, obviously, there isn't anything like that in the New Testament.

You have no logical place to go. You are forced to agree with the OP when he believes that no one can find a verse in the Old Testament or the New Testament which commands a modern Christian to rape, kill, pillage, or burn.

What have I missed? I'm sure you'll stick to this argument and not bring in other, side issues.

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: charles1952

Please allow me to take the radical step of saying, that for this post, I will accept that your contention is entirely correct, and logically proven beyond doubt. OK?

My questions now are "So what?" and "Why are you agreeing with the OP so quickly?"

I agree with the fact that God did not tell his followers to commit such atrocities in the NT...

Though you must also know this is only one in a series of threads on this topic from the OP... the second of this exact nature in fact....

Then theres this...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I suppose I could make the usual Christian argument here....

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching... Thus the OT is good teaching... "gods word" so to speak...

The OP is trying to connect the OT god as being the same as Jesus... it just doesn't work...

a reply to: Akragon

Dear Akragon,

Thank you. (As I sigh deeply in relief.) I thought the world had gone mad. My mistake was reading the OP, and deciding that he was actualy asking for what he said he was asking for.

While I understand our confusion now, I feel as though you've let me down just a little. I thought the idea was to read the OP and address that Opening Post. Certainly anyone can say, "I think the real reason you're making this request for a verse is to show that the OT God is the same as Jesus." Maybe he's thinking that way, maybe he's not, but surely we have to deal with the OP before we start looking into possible motivations for the thread. (Please check my Bulverism thread, if you feel like it.)

Think of how much frustration would have been saved if the first response would have been "You're right. There isn't any verse in the Bible that orders modern Christians to use violence. Now that I've said that, it does not logically, or even reasonably, follow that the Gods of the two Testaments are identical." (I would have agreed that it doesn't follow.)

What would have been the risk in that? Why have we spent nearly twenty pages in the two threads coming to that point? We could have ended the whole mess in one page.

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: charles1952

As in many cases the OP decided to make a number of threads on the same subject, as if one wasn't enough to cover what he is trying to get at...

Also there is a literally 10 other threads on this subject... claiming the god of the OT is evil... I have a few myself actually...

its an ongoing debate but the OP decided to announce that he would renounce his faith which would obviously attract people who have read the OT... and possibly compared it with the NT

Admittedly there is nothing in the NT that tells Christians to kill or any of the other things mentioned... which essentially eliminates this discussion, but... That is not the OP's motive...

Hes looking to prove that the Father of Jesus IS in fact the god of the OT... much like a few other people, which can not be proven... Theres simply no evidence of the two being the same...

The root of all these discussions or arguments is the same...

Jesus VS The Imposter

and that was almost two years ago.... but it started 2000 years ago, and it was hidden from us until recently...

a reply to: Akragon

Dear Akragon,

Thank you very much. You have provided me with the nugget of gold I was hoping to find. I am fully ready to admit that I know little about this poster. He may be a monomaniac, I don't know.

I suppose I was originally captivated by the responses, probably from people who knew more than I do. I was taking the OP in isolation.

When I read the OP, my first reaction was "OK, sure, we get that, why bother. What are you posters screaming about?" You have provided a possible alternative reason.

Thanks again.

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: charles1952

Think of how much frustration would have been saved if the first response would have been "You're right. There isn't any verse in the Bible that orders modern Christians to use violence. Now that I've said that, it does not logically, or even reasonably, follow that the Gods of the two Testaments are identical." (I would have agreed that it doesn't follow.)

What would have been the risk in that? Why have we spent nearly twenty pages in the two threads coming to that point? We could have ended the whole mess in one page.

Because apparently, that's supposed to exonerate God. And personally, I don't agree with that. Whether it's the NT or OT you wanna look at, there's lots of dirty little things that I feel ANYONE responsible for such things should have to answer for, god or not.

And the NT/OT share enough material that I feel the superficial differentiations ( they are the same book, for all practical purposes, in my opinion - you can find a more detailed explanation for that in my posts on page 4, if you care to look) made between the two do little to obscure these crimes against humanity. And even if you get your name legally changed or get your criminal records expunged, the only way to really make recompense for such horrible deeds is to change the way you deal with the world. Last I knew, we're still using the original commandments. Last I knew, we're still referring to the "old ways", the ones that inspire so much loathing in me, for guidance on a regular basis. Last I knew, the only book you read on Sunday in church is the same one we've been using since the death of Jesus.

I don't see much change there. And if the instructions that inspired such violence then are the ones we're reading now, then one of two things has to happen: we ignore it or we obey it.

What I don't understand, and maybe someone can clarify, is how we can take one selection from a chapter and use it to defend our moral position in today's world, but mysteriously neglect to mention other laws prominent in the same chapter that we ignore on a regular basis. And that's why I don't feel that "instructions concerning modern Christians" is at all a reasonable standard. Those laws on homosexuality and divorce and abortion are not concerning modern Christians any more than eating bacon, wearing mixed fibers, or sleeping with your woman within a month of her period.

Is this really so hard to understand?

With all of that said, I see you admitted you don't know much about the poster. Maybe you should take a second gander at his intentions, both in this thread and the previous one on which this is based. Your personal position might give you difficulty in comprehending the game set-up, but trust me when I tell you that this thread was never intended to give anyone a fair chance unless they were providing the obligatory "There are no such verses, God is good and just and fair, praise Jesus, Amen!"

I don't know why you entered the discussion, but that was the purpose of this thread. It is evident to everyone who isn't defaulting. And sadly to say, there's a good amount of defaulting happening in this thread. No regard for evidence, only picking a conclusion and finding the verses that support it. Which the Bible happens to be good for, from my experience on this site.

But seeing as how the OP has kindly neglected to finish the battle he so thoughtfully initiated, I will sit back and see how the rest of this thread goes. Now that I've had a night to wind down and distance myself, I'm hoping to see a conclusion worthy of ATS's motto, for everyone's benefit. I suppose we'll find out.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: charles1952

As in many cases the OP decided to make a number of threads on the same subject, as if one wasn't enough to cover what he is trying to get at...

Also there is a literally 10 other threads on this subject... claiming the god of the OT is evil... I have a few myself actually...

its an ongoing debate but the OP decided to announce that he would renounce his faith which would obviously attract people who have read the OT... and possibly compared it with the NT

Admittedly there is nothing in the NT that tells Christians to kill or any of the other things mentioned... which essentially eliminates this discussion, but... That is not the OP's motive...

Hes looking to prove that the Father of Jesus IS in fact the god of the OT... much like a few other people, which can not be proven... Theres simply no evidence of the two being the same...

The root of all these discussions or arguments is the same...

Jesus VS The Imposter

and that was almost two years ago.... but it started 2000 years ago, and it was hidden from us until recently...

Akragon, I'm not sure if you saw my exchange with FlyersFan regarding the OT/NT...it's back on page 4. Perhaps you could rewind and have a gander? I'd like to know your thoughts.

a reply to: AfterInfinity

I've been following along the whole time, but I had to go back and read it over...

SO you think that the NT was designed because of the need of for a less violent God in a less violent world?

The world Jesus grew up in was hardly less violent then any other time period before that... The romans pretty much ruled the world... and their society ruled by the sword...

By his time the so called "god" of the OT all but disappeared for a few hundred years...

The NT is based on the OT, but it was the same people writing it.... so of course they would try to base it around the scriptures they have... but notice they didn't continue on with the Old God... they turned a man into God... and eventually because of the romans made God three in one...

A new religion came from the OLD... a new way of thinking as well...

Reply to whomever.

I have reached understanding about this thread. It consists of three parts.

1.) The OP was absolutely correct, in that he believed no one could find a verse commanding modern western Christians to kill, rape, pillage or burn. Akragon, that paragon of critical and questioning thought agrees, as do I.

2.) The OP probably had a motive in mind when he wrote the thread. We may have several good ideas of what it was, but we can't know for sure, until we ask the OP and get an answer.

3.) The motive which is being attributed to him is being attacked. It may very well be that his motive is flawed.

May I ask if it is common for ATS posters to dismiss the words of an OP in order to attack what we believe his motive is?

If the accuracy of the statements in an OP can be attacked because of who the poster is, I would strongly recommend those believers to click on my link to Bulverism in my signature.

Akragon honestly said, in effect, "We can't find the verse, the OP is right. Now we should consider what he intends to do in the future with this fact."

I'm not able to deal with the problems that we actually have, but if you want to add to those the problems which might occur in the future, feel free.

Reply to whomever.

I have reached understanding about this thread. It consists of three parts.

1.) The OP was absolutely correct, in that he believed no one could find a verse commanding modern western Christians to kill, rape, pillage or burn. Akragon, that paragon of critical and questioning thought agrees, as do I.

2.) The OP probably had a motive in mind when he wrote the thread. We may have several good ideas of what it was, but we can't know for sure, until we ask the OP and get an answer.

3.) The motive which is being attributed to him is being attacked. It may very well be that his motive is flawed.

May I ask if it is common for ATS posters to dismiss the words of an OP in order to attack what we believe his motive is?

If the accuracy of the statements in an OP can be attacked because of who the poster is, I would strongly recommend those believers to click on my link to Bulverism in my signature.

Akragon honestly said, in effect, "We can't find the verse, the OP is right. Now we should consider what he intends to do in the future with this fact."

I'm not able to deal with the problems that we actually have, but if you want to add to those the problems which might occur in the future, feel free.

originally posted by: charles1952
Reply to whomever.

I have reached understanding about this thread. It consists of three parts.

1.) The OP was absolutely correct, in that he believed no one could find a verse commanding modern western Christians to kill, rape, pillage or burn. Akragon, that paragon of critical and questioning thought agrees, as do I.

2.) The OP probably had a motive in mind when he wrote the thread. We may have several good ideas of what it was, but we can't know for sure, until we ask the OP and get an answer.

3.) The motive which is being attributed to him is being attacked. It may very well be that his motive is flawed.

May I ask if it is common for ATS posters to dismiss the words of an OP in order to attack what we believe his motive is?

If the accuracy of the statements in an OP can be attacked because of who the poster is, I would strongly recommend those believers to click on my link to Bulverism in my signature.

Akragon honestly said, in effect, "We can't find the verse, the OP is right. Now we should consider what he intends to do in the future with this fact."

I'm not able to deal with the problems that we actually have, but if you want to add to those the problems which might occur in the future, feel free.

Maybe you should look up the word "understanding", because from where I'm sitting, you pulled those conclusions out of thin air. By the verses I have already posted, your god may be counted as one of the greatest monsters to ever surface in the literary world, and no amount of excuses can justify the tyranny and terrorism described in both the NT and the OT. And your god should hope I never meet him face to face. If it was good enough for Hitler, it's more than good enough for him. And I do not appreciate your insinuations that I just assumed Godlover is incorrect (yes, I did read the Bulverism thing) as I have already posted more than enough proof to convict your god in any court of law. Fortunately for you, consistency has always been atrocious where Christian doctrine is involved, which means you can interpret your way to a loving and merciful god no matter what the book says.

And just to be clear - this thread proves nothing except that Christians make excellent lawyers. Yet another criminal walks free, figuratively speaking. May he rot in the abysmal hellhole he designed for us, his precious children.