-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
The Bible explains that we all have an inborn moral compass but certainly I am sure you would agree that the scales can be altered, depending on culture and religion. Nevertheless, the tree of life in the garden was there for a reason. And God did not allow them to get to it. Yes, that is just. Furthermore, now I ask you if you go along with the concept of evolution insofar as natural life followed by death goes?
Two winners and a tiger!
But you'll never win over the Christians -- they'll read your words and know what they mean and forget them, all before getting to the period at the end of each sentence.
If you can make that assertion, I have to assume that you know what that reason was. Now, can you edify the rest of us? And while doing so, can you make clear why we should be given life, but not have access to the tree that purports to explain life?
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
It's in the account in Genesis as to the reason. God cast them out of the Garden before they could get to the tree. That is not unfair. Or unjust. He already told them they would die. I'm glad you brought that point out because it helps to clarify.
Well, adding magic to magic doesn't clarify anything for me. Magic trees that can bring you education or eternal life -- there's not many of those around, and it's kind of hard to see why God would even bother to make such things, if they were not to be touched. (But I'm sure you can conjure up something that sounds plausible to you, if nobody else.)
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I believe you brought out about the tree that God did not allow them to eat from and I answered you.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I'm guessing because I haven't read all your posts that you believe in evolution rather than God's creation, right? That makes a difference.
That would be a reasonable supposition, since we know humans, and indeed very many animals, possess evolved moral tendencies, In humans these are dislike of the one who harms, like of fairness and reciprocity, respect for authority, loyalty to the group, and a sense of self-worth through self-denial, plus (like very many animals) child nurture and protection. We've also evolved a conscience and a capacity for empathy.
Indeed, though all humans have the tendencies I've mentioned. You'll notice they contain potential conflicts eg group loyalty OR dislike of the one who harms / cheats / hogs &c. And we acquire the rest of our morality from our culture, largely about how individuals relate to each other ─ how to behave towards others, depending on their sex, age, family relationship or not, relative place in the peck order, how to dine together, how to excrete 'correctly', and so on. So in those areas in particular we may find distinct differences between cultures.
The reason ─ the only reasons ─ given in Genesis 2-3 are set out in Genesis 3:22-23. They clearly state that God expels Adam and Eve in order to protect [his] own position ─ to head off possible rivals.
That's not justice, that's politics.
On top of which, I've never been able to see what's wrong with knowing good from evil, why ignorance of the difference is somehow 'better'. Can you explain that to me?
Yes, of course. It's backed, so far without any contradiction being established, by examinable evidence the volume of which steady increases. The modern theory of evolution, which sets out to account for the manifest facts of evolution, is a scientific theory in very good standing ─ though of course, like the whole of science, it's a work in progress, so the details of our understanding are likely to change over time.
Well, you'll never win over some Christians. Or some Muslims. Or some Hindus, Or some Buddhists. Or some Shinto followers. Or, I dare say, some followers of the Great Spirit. But there are others.
nPeace
Veteran Member
You have a very strong opinion on that.
Perhaps you will share the reason for that opinion.
Again, I acknowledge your opinion.
Of course, the Bible makes clear that Adam and Eve were not to live forever... which God has the right to decide.
The Bible does not say anything about God fearing rivalry from man.
I have no problem with removing the wicked from the earth.
If every ruling nation could do that, wouldn't that be great!
Did you have a problem when United States Navy SEALs took out Osama Bin Laden?
Did you weep for the families destroyed in the bombing raids on his compounds?
Well certainly, God did not keep any Secret Classified Information from us.
That's what I like about this great king, judge, and warrior. There are no secrets. No cover ups, etc.
I read this, only this morning...
(Exodus 3:7-9) . . .“I have certainly seen the affliction of my people who are in Egypt, and I have heard their outcry because of those who force them to work; I well know the pains they suffer. I will go down to rescue them out of the hand of the Egyptians and to bring them up out of that land to a land good and spacious, a land flowing with milk and honey, the territory of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites. Now look! The outcry of the people of Israel has reached me, and I have seen also the harsh way that the Egyptians are oppressing them.
One may ask. "Wait. Why is he going to take the land from the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites?"
Why?
Leviticus 18:3
You must not behave as they do in the land of Egypt, where you were dwelling, and you must not do what they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. And you must not walk in their statutes.
24 “‘Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things, for it is by all these things that the nations that I am driving out from before you have made themselves unclean. 25 Therefore, the land is unclean, and I will bring punishment on it for its error, and the land will vomit its inhabitants out. 26 But you yourselves must keep my statutes and my judicial decisions, and you must not do any of these detestable things, whether a native or a foreigner who is residing among you. 27 For all these detestable things were done by the men who lived in the land before you, and now the land is unclean. 28 Then the land will not have to vomit you out for defiling it in the same way that it will vomit out the nations that were before you. 29 If anyone does any of these detestable things, all those doing them must be cut off from among their people. 30 You must keep your obligation to me by not practicing any of the detestable customs that were carried on before you, so that you do not make yourselves unclean by them. I am Jehovah your God.’”
It's his land.
Seems reasonable for him to manage it according to his pleasure.
You obviously disagree. What reasons do you have for disagreeing?
A sacrifice is always good, so long as it is in keeping with good practice, and not violating any moral law.
If for example, you did something for me, and I am truly grateful, I would want to show my gratitude, and the depth of my gratitude will be evident in the value of my actions.
Suppose I am really rich, I could give you $500, but to me, that's like "chicken feed" (nothing - no sacrifice).
Giving you $5,000,000... now that's something - a sacrifice, showing how much I appreciate you.
Jephthah was willing to give the one thing that "meant the world to him" - his only daughter, to Jehovah - that is, to belong to God - serving him in his temple, for life... like Samuel did.
Unfortunately, some have mistakenly come to the conclusion that this was some sort of sacrifice, involving death, but this is either because they have not taken the time to carefully examine the scriptures, or they have been blinded by their own pride... or misled by others.
It's not too late for such ones though. There is still time for them to come to their senses and escape from the snare of the Devil, seeing that they have been caught alive by him to do his will. (2 Timothy 2:26)
Why do you keep repeating this false claim?
Isn't speaking the truth a moral excellence... or do you think slandering others is morally right?
How did you arrive at that conclusion?
That's quite an accusation.
While I have not said anything about you, you are making personal attacks that are unwarranted.
I haven't even mentioned anything about your life, and what it would make you.
For example, I didn't say blu is immoral because ...
So can we keep this discussion off of me. Also, can you stop with the slander.
Okay, so, when you say, "these things", you need to be clear, because the slavery in Egypt was not approved by God, but not all slavery is bad.
I do not approve of certain forms of slavery, as I explained, quite clearly.
I think one would have to be drunk not to have grasped what I said... unless they were out of their mind.
I don't think you are either... I would hope.
As regards my approval of mass rapes, I have never had anyone tell such a bald face lie on me, but you do show some strong emotion for your opinions.
"murderous religious intolerance"? Whatever that must mean.
You probably are saying that God murders those he does not tolerate. How funny.
I don't hear people accusing the judge, who sentences someone to death, and the executioner who carries out the execution, of being murderers.
Must be something people have against God.
Anyway, you don't believe in any God, do you? So these are all stories right?
Why are you on about this, again?
You are not in any position to judge my morality.
Besides, where do you get those from, anyway?
Last edited:
Here we again run into the problem that you don't read your bible, or if you do, you leave out the parts you don't like.
As I said, God gives [his] reasons for expelling Adam and Eve in Genesis 3:22:23, which says,
Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever" ─ therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden."
So Adam and Eve are booted out lest they become able to challenge God's position.
God admits [he] blundered in making humans (Genesis 6:6) so [he] sets out to kill the lot with a flood. Nothing perfect, nothing infallible, about this early version of the deity.
And God interferes with the Tower of Babel because [he] fears the rivalry of humans. Genesis 6:3 And they said to one another, "Come, let us make bricks, and burn them thoroughly." And they has brick for stone and bitumen for mortar. 4 Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens" ... 6 And the Lord said, "Behold, they are one people,and they have all one language; and this is only the beginning of what they will do; and nothing that they propose to do will be impossible. Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another's speech." Once again God is acting solely in [his] own perceived interest, ie not justly but politically.
Once again you fail to address the issue. Deuteronomy 7:1-2 "When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations ... then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them and show them no mercy." (Repeated at 20:16).
Nowhere does it attribute wickedness to them. Which leaves you where I said it leaves you, happy to see the massacre of populations after they've been conquered. No mercy is required. Screw mercy, you say,
So you're also happy with large-scale capital punishment for criminals, not just for murder but for anything "wicked", and massacres of surrendered populations where no questions of guilt or innocent arise. Okay, that's clear.
Do you favor the execution of people because they're homosexual? Are they on your "ought to be killed" list too?
I'm ambivalent about it. On the one hand, bin Laden was a declared enemy of the US and had deliberately sponsored murders of innocent people. The complicating factor is that in order to kill him, the US disregarded the sovereignty of a nation with which it was not at war, meaning that the US would have no moral basis to complain if some other nation made a raid on the US to exact the same kind of revenge.
Because the bible God has no moral qualms about invasive war. It follows you have no moral argument against, but rather great admiration for Putin, for invading Ukraine. You and Patriarch Kirill are no doubt pen pals.
Only by war and massacre. You recall what Jephthah by his messengers says in Judges 11:23 "So then the Lord God of Israel dispossessed the Amorites from before his people Israel; and are you to take possession of them? 24 Will you not possess what Chemosh your god gives you to possess? And all that the Lord our God has dispossessed before us, we will possess."
Jephthah's daughter was a human sacrifice that pleased God, who went on to promote Jephthah to be Judge of Israel. God set the sacrifice up, and thought it was great.
And you plainly have no argument with human sacrifice. How else, you say, can you show the depth of your gratitude than by killing someone else?
No, he wasn't. Only God knew that the daughter was involved when God set up the deal. He then felt bound by his vow to suffer the consequences and carry out the human sacrifice.
Another difference between you and me is that I'm opposed to human sacrifice and you have no moral objection it as long as it's done right.
I think the bible shows your god has vile morals (though not readily distinguished from other Semitic gods of the region back in the Bronze Age) and you need to be careful not to ape them.
Oh, and you said it wasn't true that you didn't know why Jesus had to die, or to die in a horrible manner, or what his death accomplished that an omnipotent omniscient perfect god couldn't accomplish without bloodshed.
You can readily correct what you say is my error by giving coherent answers to those questions, something you certainly haven't done in the past.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Well, I'll be a monkey's uncle. I must not be able to read.
Which Bible did you read that line from again... "Adam and Eve are booted out lest they become able to challenge God's position."?
Blu's Twisted Version 2020?
That's how you see it.
Someone said the Bible is easy to understand. So, I guess you don't need help.
Sounds as though you think you've got it covered.
It's clear in your head. Not what I said.
Just today, I was telling another atheist about those atheists that only listen to themselves.
I don't think he believed me, but I hope he's seeing this ... can this be called a conversation. Nope. Lol.
You asking, or telling?
LOL. This is a classic.
I hope @It Aint Necessarily So is paying attention. Lol
Oh dear. This is the most bizarre post I have ever read.
Does this happen, for real. Lol
I guess you said everything then.
Hope that made your day.
Sweet dreams. Lol
It certainly looks that way.
I've quoted it to you twice. Here it is again.
Genesis 3:22-23
Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good for evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever" ─ therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden ...
If you say that in the garden story God offers some other reason for kicking them out, please quote it.
If not, then at least you've learnt what the bible actually says on the point.
Now, among the various questions you've evaded, this was one of the early ones:
You're still to state why it was necessary for Jesus to die, why it was necessary for him to die horribly, and what his death accomplished that an omnipotent God could not have accomplished without bloodshed.
I freely admit I don't know. I thought we'd agreed that neither of us knew the answers, but lately you've been backing away from that.
If you in fact have the answer, just set it out.
If you don't know, just say, "I don't know."
nPeace
Veteran Member
To whom? a blind person?
You repeatedly quoted it, and cannot see it? Wow.
"...lest he put forth his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"
Wow.
I repeatedly told you, I have no interest in telling you.
That certainly does not follow, that I don't know.
Certainly, as I said before, I posted the answer on RF, since two posters asked the said question.
Your false statement "I thought we'd agreed that neither of us knew the answers, but lately you've been backing away from that." is clear evidence you are not interested in anything i say, but interested in only what you think, or say.
Hence why I refuse to give you the answer.
It's an important and serious answer... at least to me. One you clearly have no serious interest in.
Refusing to answer you, does not mean I don't know.
(Matthew 21:23-27) 23 After he went into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came up to him while he was teaching and said: “By what authority do you do these things? And who gave you this authority?” 24 In reply Jesus said to them: “I will also ask you one thing. If you tell me, then I will also tell you by what authority I do these things: 25 The baptism by John, from what source was it? From heaven or from men?” But they began to reason among themselves, saying: “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will say to us, ‘Why, then, did you not believe him?’ 26 But if we say, ‘From men,’ we have the crowd to fear, for they all regard John as a prophet.” 27 So they answered Jesus: “We do not know.” He, in turn, said to them: “Neither am I telling you by what authority I do these things.
Whoever claimed Jesus did not know the answer is just as blind as those Pharisees, and to follow such erroneous thinking, demonstrates one's unreasonableness.
That's right! Yes! God kicks 'em out of Eden to stop them becoming equal to [him]self! By not only knowing good from evil but also by living forever!
Neither disobedience nor sin is mentioned ANYWHERE in the story. Not even once.
Instead, out loud and proud, the Lord is covering [his] own backside.
I'm relieved you can finally grasp the obvious, since the text could hardly be plainer.
And even if you did, you couldn't, because plain as the proverbial, you don't know.
Nothing false about my statement. It sets out exactly what I thought.
What's false is your implying you can actually provide a coherent and credible answer to those questions.
Oh, and you forgot to clarify for me whether in your opinion homosexuals are "wicked" and therefore in your view deserve death.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Perhaps you should try listening to others, rather than only hearing yourself.
It would prevent you writing these egocentric posts, and see what I actually wrote.
Of course, the Bible makes clear that Adam and Eve were not to live forever... which God has the right to decide.
The Bible does not say anything about God fearing rivalry from man.
The obvious, obviously isn't what you wrote... here, nor prior.
Keep telling yourself that. See if doing so will make it true.
Even after you are dead and gone, it still won't be true.
It's not true, so Columbus... it's false.
I see you moving the goal posts. Moral? No... but that won't help.
Forgot? Me? You've got the wrong guy, B.
Did you ask this before? Where?
We Never Know
No Slack
Cruelty -
callous indifference to or pleasure in causing pain and suffering.
History has been marred with many cruel acts.
Scientists believe that there were battles fought by Neanderthals, which lasted 100,000 years, where heads were bashed in with clubs, and where javelins pierced body parts, and many arms were broken.
Young ones were also subjected to cruelty, some experts suggest.
Of course these hypotheses cannot be verified.Early human ate young Neanderthal
Sometime between 28,000 and 30,000 years ago, an anatomically modern human in what is now France may have eaten a Neanderthal child, according to a new study.
It is the first study to suggest Europe's first humans had a violent relationship with their muscular, big-headed hominid ancestors.
The secret Lives of Neanderthal Children
The Devil's Tower boy, found in 1926 in Gibraltar, died at only around five years old, possibly from skull fractures. But he had already suffered another serious incident earlier in life: as a toddler, his jaw was fractured. It's impossible to say how these injuries happened, but clearly, Neanderthal childhood could be dangerous.
Some archaeologists also believe there is evidence of much cruel acts against children, as young as babies.
Ancient Authorities Reported Child Sacrifice In Carthage
Writing in the 4th century B.C.E, the Greek historian Cleitarchus said of the Carthaginian practice, “There stands in their midst a bronze statue of Kronos, its hands extended over a bronze brazier, the flames of which engulf the child. When the flames fall upon the body, the limbs contract and the open mouth seems almost to be laughing until the contracted body slips quietly into the brazier. Thus it is that the ‘grin’ is known as ‘sardonic laughter,’ since they die laughing.” (trans. Paul G. Mosca) “Kronos” was a regional name for Baal Hammon, the chief of Carthage’s gods.
Another Greek historian named Diodorus Siculus writing less than a hundred years after the fall Carthage affirms his countryman’s account. “There was in their city a bronze image of Cronus extending its hands, palms up and sloping toward the ground, so that each of the children when placed thereon rolled down and fell into a sort of gaping pit filled with fire.”
Most scholars agree that the ritual performed at the tophet was child sacrifice
Archaeologists have applied the term "tophet" to large cemeteries of children found at Carthaginian sites that have traditionally been believed to house the victims of child sacrifice, as described by Hellenistic and biblical sources.
However, children are not always the victims of cruelty.
The daughter of Herodias danced for the occasion and pleased Herod so much that he promised with an oath to give her whatever she asked. Then she, at her mother’s prompting, said: “Give me here on a platter the head of John the Baptist.” Grieved though he was, the king, out of regard for his oaths and for those dining with him, commanded it to be given. So he sent and had John beheaded in the prison. His head was brought on a platter and given to the girl, and she brought it to her mother. Matthew 14:6-11
Salome, (flourished 1st century ce), according to the Jewish historian Josephus, the daughter of Herodias and stepdaughter of Herod Antipas, tetrarch (ruler appointed by Rome) of Galilee, a region in Palestine. In Biblical literature she is remembered as the immediate agent in the execution of John the Baptist.
List of youngest killers
Ziapasa Daughter, 3-Year-Old Murderess – West Virginia, 1906
The youngest murderess in the history of this state is the 3-year-old daughter of Michael Ziapasa, of Benwood, who so badly wounded a 2-months-old baby of a neighbor, Edward Schepech, that it died.
In the absence of the baby’s mother, the Ziapasa child attacked it with a butcher knife, cutting off its nose, stabbing it in the breast in many places and almost severing its arm.
Of particular interest, are the youngest of the murderesses.
Youthful Borgias: Girls Who Murder – The Forgotten “Lizzie Bordens”Age 3 – 1906 – Ziapasa daughter
Age 4 – 1885 – Lizzie Lewis
Age 4 – 1897 – Retta McCabe
Age 6 – 1892 – Bottoms Girl
Age 6 – 1899 – Lizzie Cook
Age 7 – 1887 – Virginia (or, Georgiana) Hudson
Age 7 – 1925 – Alsa Thompson
Age 8 – 1867 – Martin Girl
Age 8 – 2001 – Jummai Hassan
Age 8 – 1900 – Valentine Dilly
Age 9 – 1885 – Mary Cooper
Age 9 – 1884 – Annie Bebles
Age 9 – 1902 – Anna Peters
Age 9 – 1896 – Hattie Record
Age 9 – 2005 – “East New York girl”
Age 10 – 1834 – Honorine Pellois
Age 10 – 1873 – Sarah Reeves
Age 10 – 1897 – Geneva Arnold
Age 10 – 1886 – Jane Walker
Age 10 – 2010 – “Sandy Springs girl”
Age 10 – 2012 – Kelli Murphy
I strangled the baby, because I felt they were working me too hard. Laughs I have to laugh, when the impulse comes over me.
Among the public overall, 64% say the death penalty is morally justified in cases of murder, while 33% say it is not justified. An overwhelming share of death penalty supporters (90%) say it is morally justified under such circumstances, compared with 25% of death penalty opponents.”
For discussion...
Are acts against cruelty, in itself, an act of cruelty?
Some see hunting deer as cruel.
For some it gets needed food so I don't think its cruel.
nPeace
Veteran Member
I don't think the butcher nipping the neck of the chicken, is finding some delight and pleasure in doing so.
Beating the chicken to death, might indicate he does... and the meat would not be any good, afterward.
Except of course the part I quoted you, and the Tower of Babel caper, and there are probably more. Bronze Age gods were players in a very competitive field, so stamping on rivals is second nature to them ─ henotheism being competitive by its very nature.
Of course I know. I've invited you again and again to make a fool of me over that claim by clearly expounding the answers to me, but as we can all see, you can't do that.
I'm not moving any goalposts. You expressed approval for the killing of the wicked, and I asked you previously, and above I asked you again, and now I ask you a third time, Do you account homosexuals among the wicked and do you therefore think they should be killed?
What's the answer?
When you were approving the killing of the wicked, of course.
But you didn't answer then, so why not clear the point up now instead of evading, dodging, making excuses, and generally tending to show why the apologist is among the least honest of humans?