Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

[JM2C]

The Bible can be manipulated (and often is) to fit whatever dogma you choose to believe.

Catholics use certain parts of the Bible to justify their beliefs and practices, and Evangelical

Protestants use certain parts of the Bible to justify their beliefs and practices.

The problem is not "do they base their beliefs on what the Bible says?"

Both of them obviously do. It all boils down to "What interpretation of what the Bible says, do they use?"

That’s It? “wallah” “there you have it” Another classic Bada bing bada boom theory

Your analysis is the manipulation and the interpretation of what the bible says.

How was it manipulated?

From what language was it manipulated?

Was it before the interpretation or after?

Or was it intrepreted first then manipulated?

Can you give an example of a manipulated verse in the bible with different interpretation from the Evangelicals sides and the Catholics sides?

 

[JM2C]

Why is it okay for God to be wrathful, even though wrath considered a "sin?"
Why is it okay for God to be jealous and envious, even though those are "sins?"
Why is it that God can murder, even though murder is a "sin."
Does God not like playing by his own rules? Double standard much?

Ro 9:19 Well then, you might say, “Why does God blame people for not listening? Haven’t they simply done what he made them do?”

Ro 9:20 No, don’t say that. Who are you, a mere human being, to criticize God? Should the thing that was created say to the one who made it, “Why have you made me like this?”

Ro 9:21 When a potter makes jars out of clay, doesn’t he have a right to use the same lump of clay to make one jar for decoration and another to throw garbage into?

And according to you,

God is the ultimate source of all things,

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Among the Christian community, anyone who doesn't agree with the doctrine of the denomination in question tend to accuse the other of "manipulating" the Bible. Thus, I find it amusing that one would be called to task for making the same claim made by the taskmaster.

- the Catholics take a look at the Bible, determine Jesus was God in the flesh, observe that Mary gave birth to Jesus, then conclude that Mary was the Mother of God.
- The "Charismatic" movement take a quip from Romans, then quip from Psalms "Groaning of the spirit", a quip here and there then conclude a doctrine called the "Prayer Language"; a bastardization of the gift of "tongues".
- Jehovah's Witness bible study material will have you busy as a hornet in a bee's nest jumping from book to book to "prove" their doctrine of 2 kinds of hell.
- David Koresh convinced his followers that "annointeth my head with oil" was an inference to sexual intercourse, thus claimed the "God given right" to "enjoy" the women of his congregation.

More?

 

[JM2C]

Is God stupid?

That is really beyond blasphemy. May you never talk again…..

 

[JM2C]

Among the Christian community, anyone who doesn't agree with the doctrine of the denomination in question tend to accuse the other of "manipulating" the Bible.

Thus, I find it amusing that one would be called to task for making the same claim made by the taskmaster.

- the Catholics take a look at the Bible, determine Jesus was God in the flesh, observe that Mary gave birth to Jesus, then conclude that Mary was the Mother of God.

- The "Charismatic" movement take a quip from Romans, then quip from Psalms "Groaning of the spirit", a quip here and there then conclude a doctrine called the "Prayer Language"; a bastardization of the gift of "tongues".

- Jehovah's Witness bible study material will have you busy as a hornet in a bee's nest jumping from book to book to "prove" their doctrine of 2 kinds of hell.

- David Koresh convinced his followers that "annointeth my head with oil" was an inference to sexual intercourse, thus claimed the "God given right" to "enjoy" the women of his congregation.

More?

So now you agree with me that there is a true Christian and the semi-hybrid Christians. IOW, you have no idea what is a true Christian. You think by giving descriptions of these different types of Christian denomination you think you already have a complete knowledge about Christianity, you know, a quip here and there.

What was that again from your fellow agnostics, atheist?

No True Scotsman fallacy.

Your No True Scotsman

True Christians exist folks and its not a fallacy.

You just gave a very good example of how you people contradict each other and yet still have the same mind/thinking. The Lord Jesus Christ said it perfectly,

Mt 12:26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Nnnnoooooo, that's not exactly how I'd put it. But close.

I'd say that there are actually 3 kinds of Christians:

1. Hypocritical Christians: Put on their Sunday Best but take it off on Monday, leaving their doctrines at the door. The doctrines of Christianity are tools of manipulation and justification for them, nothing more. EXAMPLE: These are the ones who will use my homosexuality as an excuse to get me removed from my job for the "image of the business" but is really their feelings of repugnance at being near me, then embezzle money from their boss.
2. Legalistic Christians: They understand the rules, beat others over the head with their Bibles, but do not practice the messages of benevolence that was taught by the one who is supposed to be their namesake: "Christ". These seem to live in a world of fear where everything is out to get them and tarnish their immortal souls; from Rock 'n Roll to the "demonic" nature of the Smurfs to Scientists. EXAMPLE: These are the ones who will learn I am atheist and gay, and will beat the scriptures over my head, yelling at me over what I already know: being that I'm going to hell and doom and gloom and suffering await me. Fear and rules guide their lives, cleverly camouflaged as "faith".
3. Spiritual Christians: These are the ones who get it. "By their fruits ye shall know them". Love, Joy, Hope, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Meekness, Gentleness and Self Control (I think, I was too lazy to look it up, LoL, but I think you get my gist). EXAMPLE: These are the Christians who know that I already know where they stand in regards to my homosexuality, but will treat me with the dignity I deserve as a human being and invite me into their homes for supper. These are the ones who allow reason and compassion guide their decisions instead of dogmatic adherence to doctrines or scriptures. They have more important things to do than to worry about Creationism.

 

[JM2C]

More?

More contradiction from each one of you? Yeah, why not.

 

[JM2C]

Nnnnoooooo, that's not exactly how I'd put it. But close.

Keep on guessing maybe you get it right next time, you know, time and chance. If there is time there is a chance.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

So now you agree that God is the source of all things.

Triumphant_Loser
Religion: Deism

de·ism [dee-iz-uhm]
noun
1.
belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism ).
2.
belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.

God created the good first before it became evil that breeds nothing but evil.

So then, by your logic, good can birth evil.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

Ro 9:21 When a potter makes jars out of clay, doesn’t he have a right to use the same lump of clay to make one jar for decoration and another to throw garbage into?

The problem with your comparison of jars to humans is problematic. Jars do not have emotions. They cannot feel pain. They cannot experience suffering. Whereas humans do. That is where they are different. By the same logic you use, a mother has the right to abuse her own child simply because it belongs to her.

 

[JM2C]

All aboard the Christian empty-threat train! whooo-whoooooooo!!!!!

Empty-threat? That was not a threat, that’s a fact..

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Keep on guessing maybe you get it right next time, you know, time and chance. If there is time there is a chance.

:no:

I find your comment quite condescending; First, assuming that I am "guessing". Why don't you ask me how I came about those conclusions? How about looking at your definitions of "Hybrid" or "Semi-Hybrid" Christians and seek parallels, thus agreement between us? The attitude I hear from you is this: "I'm right, you're wrong, and anyone who doesn't agree with me is bumbling around blindly".

That's not conducive to constructive discourse.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

Empty-threat? That was not a threat, that’s a fact..

 

[JM2C]

The problem with your comparison of jars to humans is problematic. Jars do not have emotions. They cannot feel pain. They cannot experience suffering. Whereas humans do. That is where they are different. By the same logic you use, a mother has the right to abuse her own child simply because it belongs to her.

God is the Potter and we human are the jars. IOW, it is not literal.

 

[JM2C]

The attitude I hear from you is this: "I'm right, you're wrong, and anyone who doesn't agree with me is bumbling around blindly".

I was gonna say the same thing

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

God is the Potter and we human are the jars. IOW, it is not literal.

Read all of what I said please. It's okay to treat jars as crappily as you want to, because they do not have feelings. Humans do, however. That's the problem with your comparison. Your implication that someone can treat something as sh***y as they want to, simply because it belongs to them is quite a malicious way of thinking IMHO. Once again, is it okay for a woman to abuse her child simply because it belongs to her?

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I was gonna say the same thing

Then in my opinion, you're being hypersensitive. I have no idea what you mean by "hybrid Christian". That makes my ability to connect to what you are saying quite difficult. I have (2) basic options there: Put it into my own words or ask you what you mean. I chose "my own words". I put aside, for a moment, my distaste for your religion and sought agreement and connection. In response to my attempts, I get snubbed.

Okay. Whatever.

You're right. I'm wrong. You win.

 

[viole]

Yeah, sure I believe you. When death is knocking at your door you will understand what is the meaning of what you are saying.

Do you think that being afraid of death should motivate to believe in God? I hope you realize how self defeating that is.

Suppose I am an ex-muslim turned atheist and when death knocks at my door I start resuming my belief in Allah.

Would you say that I finally saw the light because of my impending doom?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

Then in my opinion, you're being hypersensitive. I have no idea what you mean by "hybrid Christian". That makes my ability to connect to what you are saying quite difficult. I have (2) basic options there: Put it into my own words or ask you what you mean. I chose "my own words". I put aside, for a moment, my distaste for your religion and sought agreement and connection. In response to my attempts, I get snubbed.

Okay. Whatever.

You're right. I'm wrong. You win.

Hybrid Christians. I have one of those! He's a Catho-Lutheran mix breed. He's even potty trained!

 

[JM2C]

That's not conducive to constructive discourse.

Its just habit you know. Atheist and agnostics and deism [whatever that is] always come out swinging…..

Yeah, I would love that, “conducive to constructive discourse”

“The greater our knowledge increases the more our ignorance unfolds.” -JFK