It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why do you follow a genocidal God?

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by XplanetX

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by XplanetX
 


You wrote:

["There is no special understanding of the scriptures. You either understand the scriptures or you do not."]

A completely irrational statement. But OK, let's try it.

I, Bogomil, DO understand the scriptures. And seemingly you disagree with me, so consequently you DO NOT understand scriptures.

Quote: ["2Thessalonians 2:10 and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness."]

I do not live in that imaginatorium, where the bible 'proves' the bible. In my reality Jahveh is a schizoid sociopath, who through violence enforces his own rules and call them truths.

As I 'predicted' in my former post, you are already DEEP into circle-argumentation.






1CO 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:

"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."

Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.




So your answer is MORE circle-arguments. And this time also a sprinkle of preachy semantics, containing rhetorical questions, which you try to answer on behalf of everybody.

But my claim (as a response to your initial irrational statement) is still, that I understand scripture, and that you do not. Why are you not answering to this? Are you trying to dodge the consequences of your own way of arranging options?




posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by XplanetX

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by XplanetX
 


You wrote:

["There is no special understanding of the scriptures. You either understand the scriptures or you do not."]

A completely irrational statement. But OK, let's try it.

I, Bogomil, DO understand the scriptures. And seemingly you disagree with me, so consequently you DO NOT understand scriptures.

Quote: ["2Thessalonians 2:10 and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness."]

I do not live in that imaginatorium, where the bible 'proves' the bible. In my reality Jahveh is a schizoid sociopath, who through violence enforces his own rules and call them truths.

As I 'predicted' in my former post, you are already DEEP into circle-argumentation.






1CO 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:

"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."

Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.




So your answer is MORE circle-arguments. And this time also a sprinkle of preachy semantics, containing rhetorical questions, which you try to answer on behalf of everybody.

But my claim (as a response to your initial irrational statement) is still, that I understand scripture, and that you do not. Why are you not answering to this? Are you trying to dodge the consequences of your own way of arranging options?



Not at all. I am merely pointing you in the right direction, if you choose to go in circles then so be it.


LK 6:39 He also told them this parable: "Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? A student is not above his teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like his teacher.


One of us is blind, like a sheep without a shepherd.


Mark 6:34 When Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd. So he began teaching them many things.


One of us follows his teachings, one does not.


MT 7:24 "Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash."

MT 7:28 When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 06:31 AM
link   
reply to post by XplanetX
 



You wrote:

["Not at all. I am merely pointing you in the right direction, if you choose to go in circles then so be it."]

With your topsy-turvy logic, it's ME pointing you in the right direction.

So:
When I in the following use the word 'bubble', it's not necessarily derogative. It's a graphic description of a self-contained (possibly completly closed) system. There are 'respectable' bubbles also.

Do you understand the definitions and implications of the words...faith, circle-argument, logic, rational reasoning?

Which of these words are valid in your bubble? And how?



Quote: ["One of us is blind, like a sheep without a shepherd."]

The question is who; and why.

Quote: ["One of us follows his teachings, one does not."]

And so....?



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by XplanetX
 



You wrote:

["Not at all. I am merely pointing you in the right direction, if you choose to go in circles then so be it."]

With your topsy-turvy logic, it's ME pointing you in the right direction.

So:
When I in the following use the word 'bubble', it's not necessarily derogative. It's a graphic description of a self-contained (possibly completly closed) system. There are 'respectable' bubbles also.

Do you understand the definitions and implications of the words...faith, circle-argument, logic, rational reasoning?

Which of these words are valid in your bubble? And how?



Quote: ["One of us is blind, like a sheep without a shepherd."]

The question is who; and why.

Quote: ["One of us follows his teachings, one does not."]

And so....?




Do you follow and adhere to the teachings of Christ?



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by XplanetX
 


You wrote:

["Do you follow and adhere to the teachings of Christ?"]

No, I'm a secular pastafarian.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by XplanetX
 


You wrote:

["Do you follow and adhere to the teachings of Christ?"]

No, I'm a secular pastafarian.





If you were not the least bit intrigued by the bible and it's teachings then you would not bother posting in here, so I will pray for you.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by XplanetX

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by XplanetX
 


You wrote:

["Do you follow and adhere to the teachings of Christ?"]

No, I'm a secular pastafarian.





If you were not the least bit intrigued by the bible and it's teachings then you would not bother posting in here, so I will pray for you.


You have surprisingly quick and with practically no knowledge of me arrived to conclusions around me which are

a/ Imprecise.

b/ Completely topic irrelevant.



(Btw....interest in bible/christianity can have other motives than strict theological ones).



I both understand, accept and sympathize with the need of 'regressing' a reasoning-chain in a debate, but you have lost touch with the aim and direction of this thread and instead increasingly turned to a general preaching style, carefully avoiding to answer any inconvenient questions from me.

So to get back to topic: Do you defend authority-arguments with more authority-arguments?

PS Pray all you like. I'm pray-proof.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by XplanetX

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by XplanetX
 


You wrote:

["Do you follow and adhere to the teachings of Christ?"]

No, I'm a secular pastafarian.





If you were not the least bit intrigued by the bible and it's teachings then you would not bother posting in here, so I will pray for you.


You have surprisingly quick and with practically no knowledge of me arrived to conclusions around me which are

a/ Imprecise.

b/ Completely topic irrelevant.



(Btw....interest in bible/christianity can have other motives than strict theological ones).



I both understand, accept and sympathize with the need of 'regressing' a reasoning-chain in a debate, but you have lost touch with the aim and direction of this thread and instead increasingly turned to a general preaching style, carefully avoiding to answer any inconvenient questions from me.

So to get back to topic: Do you defend authority-arguments with more authority-arguments?

PS Pray all you like. I'm pray-proof.




I have no authority.

MT 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

I believe that Jesus has all authority.

You are not arguing with me.

I understand that your interest in the bible is not strictly theological, that is why I pray for you.

Satan also understands scripture and prophecy very well and for the same reason he has his own motives for doing so.


MT 4:1 Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil. After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. The tempter came to him and said, "If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread."

MT 4:4 Jesus answered, "It is written: `Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.' "

MT 4:5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. "If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written:

" `He will command his angels concerning you,
and they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.' "

MT 4:7 Jesus answered him, "It is also written: `Do not put the Lord your God to the test.' "

MT 4:8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. "All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me."

MT 4:10 Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: `Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.' "

MT 4:11 Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him.


edit on 10-8-2011 by XplanetX because: typo



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by XplanetX
 


You wrote:

["I have no authority."]

You are a representative of an authoritarian system, preaching authority and using authoritarian arguments. That's enough for me from my pragmatic position outside your bubble.

However you position yourself in the authoritarian hierarchy you are part of, is presently of less general interest because this thread is about the moral implications of an alleged 'god'. What IS of interest here is to find a reference-point from where this subject can be 'evaluated'.

Imo your preachy circle-arguments don't add much to that, except by actually stressing and profiling the authority-base of OT values.

Quote: ["Satan also understands scripture and prophecy very well and for the same reason he has his own motives for doing so."]

I'm quite a fan of Lucifer, the arch-liberal. A freedom-fighter, not a rebel.

Satan strikes me as being a grey bureaucrat in the divine administration, who's main fault was, that he had excessive career-ambitions. He just overdid it.

But ofcourse I'm aware of your direction. It's straight from the manual of christian pre-prepared 'answers'. If the boss himself can't be promoted on his own merits, you can always try to introduce a 'bad guy' to scare people into the flock. Nice try, though not very innovative.




edit on 10-8-2011 by bogomil because: syntax, small addition.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Greatest I am
 


God is not nearly genocidal enough if you ask me. Countless millions more people deserve killing off but because of God's long suffering and mercy He lets them live. One day though the day of vengeance will come, just as my sig says ↓ Much more death is just around the corner OP...hope your on the right side of the battle!



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by XplanetX
 


You wrote:

["I have no authority."]

You are a representative of an authoritarian system, preaching authority and using authoritarian arguments. That's enough for me from my pragmatic position outside your bubble.

However you position yourself in the authoritarian hierarchy you are part of, is presently of less general interest because this thread is about the moral implications of an alleged 'god'. What IS of interest here is to find a reference-point from where this subject can be 'evaluated'.

Imo your preachy circle-arguments don't add much to that, except by actually stressing and profiling the authority-base of OT values.

Quote: ["Satan also understands scripture and prophecy very well and for the same reason he has his own motives for doing so."]

I'm quite a fan of Lucifer, the arch-liberal. A freedom-fighter, not a rebel.

Satan strikes me as being a grey bureaucrat in the divine administration, who's main fault was, that he had excessive career-ambitions. He just overdid it.

But ofcourse I'm aware of your direction. It's straight from the manual of christian pre-prepared 'answers'. If the boss himself can't be promoted on his own merits, you can always try to introduce a 'bad guy' to scare people into the flock. Nice try, though not very innovative.




edit on 10-8-2011 by bogomil because: syntax, small addition.



You are right, I am not very 'innovative' or inventive when it comes to the word of God, and for good reason.


2PE 1:16 We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.


Yes I am the typical christian with pre-prepared answers, this is also for good reason:


1PE 3:13 Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good? But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. "Do not fear what they fear; do not be frightened." But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.


You are the typical non-believer trying to trap a believer in his own words:


MT 22:15 Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. "Teacher," they said, "we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"

MT 22:18 But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"

MT 22:21 "Caesar's," they replied. Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

MT 22:22 When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Some believe that we were engineered genetically, and in that respect, the Angels who rebelled, were those whom disagreed with the design, and God was the authority that decided to wipe the slate clean when his designs did not go according to plan - his error of design blamed upon man, owing to his free will.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by XplanetX
 


You wrote:

["You are the typical non-believer trying to trap a believer in his own words:"]

I am the typical non-believer, who doesn't accept self-proclaimed authority, and who (in the context of this thread) reject efforts of trying to conduct the whole debate from a narrow set of premises, instead of the broad scope of perspectives made possible by the OP.

Another example of self-reinforcing authority-argumentation. But other perspectives than those of self-proclaimed authority aren't automatically excluded, because authority says, that authority always is right.

And with all due respect for your right to have a personal religion...... I'm not the least interested in the private details of it, nor am I interested in converting you. This is a public debate about some general principles.

You have not even answered to what premises you possibly accept apart from circular bible-argumentation. Which is a kind of indirect answer in itself.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by SystemResistor
Some believe that we were engineered genetically, and in that respect, the Angels who rebelled, were those whom disagreed with the design, and God was the authority that decided to wipe the slate clean when his designs did not go according to plan - his error of design blamed upon man, owing to his free will.


This is one of the more sensible hypotheses. Though it still stays at hypothesis level because of small evidence.

As a personal speculation I find it attractive.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by KJV1611
reply to post by Greatest I am
 


God is not nearly genocidal enough if you ask me. Countless millions more people deserve killing off but because of God's long suffering and mercy He lets them live. One day though the day of vengeance will come, just as my sig says ↓ Much more death is just around the corner OP...hope your on the right side of the battle!


At least you are honest about it, instead of all this sugarcoated semantics saying the same beneath the veneer.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by XplanetX
 


You wrote:

["You are the typical non-believer trying to trap a believer in his own words:"]

I am the typical non-believer, who doesn't accept self-proclaimed authority, and who (in the context of this thread) reject efforts of trying to conduct the whole debate from a narrow set of premises, instead of the broad scope of perspectives made possible by the OP.

Another example of self-reinforcing authority-argumentation. But other perspectives than those of self-proclaimed authority aren't automatically excluded, because authority says, that authority always is right.

And with all due respect for your right to have a personal religion...... I'm not the least interested in the private details of it, nor am I interested in converting you. This is a public debate about some general principles.

You have not even answered to what premises you possibly accept apart from circular bible-argumentation. Which is a kind of indirect answer in itself.






Jesus claimed to be the son of God (Self proclaimed authority)

I believe him, you do not.

This is not about circular reasoning, it is simply a difference of opinion.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by XplanetX

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by XplanetX
 


You wrote:

["You are the typical non-believer trying to trap a believer in his own words:"]

I am the typical non-believer, who doesn't accept self-proclaimed authority, and who (in the context of this thread) reject efforts of trying to conduct the whole debate from a narrow set of premises, instead of the broad scope of perspectives made possible by the OP.

Another example of self-reinforcing authority-argumentation. But other perspectives than those of self-proclaimed authority aren't automatically excluded, because authority says, that authority always is right.

And with all due respect for your right to have a personal religion...... I'm not the least interested in the private details of it, nor am I interested in converting you. This is a public debate about some general principles.

You have not even answered to what premises you possibly accept apart from circular bible-argumentation. Which is a kind of indirect answer in itself.






Jesus claimed to be the son of God (Self proclaimed authority)

I believe him, you do not.

This is not about circular reasoning, it is simply a difference of opinion.



Now we are finally getting somewhere. This about your personal faith, which is a subjective (and ofcourse as such legitimate..... if it's tolerant) position.

But being a public debate the idea is, that SOME common communication-platform is used. Objectivity is e.g. such a very popular COMMON basis.

If you can suggest another COMMON platform (or reference-point if you like) apart from objectivity, I'm all ears.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by XplanetX

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by XplanetX
 


You wrote:

["You are the typical non-believer trying to trap a believer in his own words:"]

I am the typical non-believer, who doesn't accept self-proclaimed authority, and who (in the context of this thread) reject efforts of trying to conduct the whole debate from a narrow set of premises, instead of the broad scope of perspectives made possible by the OP.

Another example of self-reinforcing authority-argumentation. But other perspectives than those of self-proclaimed authority aren't automatically excluded, because authority says, that authority always is right.

And with all due respect for your right to have a personal religion...... I'm not the least interested in the private details of it, nor am I interested in converting you. This is a public debate about some general principles.

You have not even answered to what premises you possibly accept apart from circular bible-argumentation. Which is a kind of indirect answer in itself.






Jesus claimed to be the son of God (Self proclaimed authority)

I believe him, you do not.

This is not about circular reasoning, it is simply a difference of opinion.



Now we are finally getting somewhere. This about your personal faith, which is a subjective (and ofcourse as such legitimate..... if it's tolerant) position.

But being a public debate the idea is, that SOME common communication-platform is used. Objectivity is e.g. such a very popular COMMON basis.

If you can suggest another COMMON platform (or reference-point if you like) apart from objectivity, I'm all ears.



I disagree.

The topic is "Why do you follow a genocidal God?"

This question is obviously directed at christians and jews who believe the bible to be true and follow God.

I have answered this question using the bible as the foundation for the answer.

If you wish to start a new topic where there is a common basis, go right ahead.



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by XplanetX
 


The question is "Why do YOU follow a genocidal God?" not "Why does the Bible say I should follow a genocidal God?"



posted on Aug, 10 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by novastrike81
reply to post by XplanetX
 


The question is "Why do YOU follow a genocidal God?" not "Why does the Bible say I should follow a genocidal God?"



You must realise that you are referring to the God described in the bible? Or do you deliberately ignore that?




top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join