SteelHead wrote:Empty of content.
The one destroys planets, countries, cities and peoples in fits of anger. The other teaches turn the other cheek, love your enemy, grace, and forgiveness.
For an unchanging god his modus operandi sure changed between books.
Your inability to get laid is manifesting itself in disturbing ways. (No doubt your transparent social ineptitude has something to do with this.)
Hoops wrote:SteelHead wrote:The one destroys planets, countries, cities and peoples in fits of anger. The other teaches turn the other cheek, love your enemy, grace, and forgiveness.
For an unchanging god his modus operandi sure changed between books.
Anachronism at its best.
For an unchanging god his modus operandi sure changed between books.
And you evidently have the evidence (and this is a rich tapestry of explanation that you've undertaken - I'll sit back while you give your thousands upon thousands of pages of explanation and evidence) that tells us you know the culture, the state of sin in the world, what kind of sin we're talking about, what God's intention is, how this fits with coming dispensations, and that, in fact, He did not show the appropriate "grace" by your standard. Then, you have to show that I should accept your standard at all.Hoops evidently considers it 'anachronistic' to have expected the deity of the Old Testament to have turned the other cheek and forgiven his enemies instead of burning them with fire, slaying them with the edge of the sword or stoning them to death.
No, it implies no such thing. It implies the cultures/societies of the world at that time were far, far worse than we can gauge. In addition, God has always punished nations for the norms they embrace. You have show why that should not be the case.Assuming that the Bible gives us accurate information about his behavior (which Hoops does I think believe is the case), that implies that the character of her deity changes over time, that is, he was different in the Old Testament from what he had become by New Testament times - or else the accusation of anachronism makes no sense
[/quote] And you think no one can prophsy anymore. Silly person!(by the way, we've been all over that meat-eating before and after the flood thing before, and she admitted her error then. Slow Learner, or what? Me, I am beginning to lean towards the 'Hoops is a chatbot' theory, a bit as I am with bcspace and whyme.)
richardMdBorn wrote:No, I'm claiming that you can't choose a definition that excludes the supernatural and have it be evidence that the supernatural doesn't exist. This is similar to what Sagan did when he asserted thatThis may be the atheist equivalent of the ontological argument for the existence of God.The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.
Hoops wrote:
For an unchanging god his modus operandi sure changed between books.
An unchanging God does not mean His behavior does not change based on the circumstance. This is one way we know God is knowable, a personal God.
An unchanging God means He is justice, mercy, compassion (note: for what it's worth, I'm not saying He has these attributes, I'm saying He IS these attributes).
Deuteronomy:
21:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
21:19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
21:20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21:21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
Deuteronomy:
21:18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, .....
21:21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. Or else the parents shall be made to undergo classes in teen parenting skills. I mean, whichever you think suits the circumstances better. You have to work it out for yourselves.
Hoops wrote: ....Chap wrote:Assuming that the Bible gives us accurate information about his behavior (which Hoops does I think believe is the case), that implies that the character of her deity changes over time, that is, he was different in the Old Testament from what he had become by New Testament times - or else the accusation of anachronism makes no sense
No, it implies no such thing. It implies the cultures/societies of the world at that time were far, far worse than we can gauge. In addition, God has always punished nations for the norms they embrace. You have show why that should not be the case.
20 The men of A.I. looked back and saw the smoke of the city rising up into the sky, but they had no chance to escape in any direction; the Israelites who had been fleeing toward the wilderness had turned back against their pursuers. 21 For when Joshua and all Israel saw that the ambush had taken the city and that smoke was going up from it, they turned around and attacked the men of A.I.. 22 Those in the ambush also came out of the city against them, so that they were caught in the middle, with Israelites on both sides. Israel cut them down, leaving them neither survivors nor fugitives. 23 But they took the king of A.I. alive and brought him to Joshua.
24 When Israel had finished killing all the men of A.I. in the fields and in the wilderness where they had chased them, and when every one of them had been put to the sword, all the Israelites returned to A.I. and killed those who were in it. 25 Twelve thousand men and women fell that day—all the people of A.I.. 26 For Joshua did not draw back the hand that held out his javelin until he had destroyed[a] all who lived in A.I.. 27 But Israel did carry off for themselves the livestock and plunder of this city, as the LORD had instructed Joshua.
28 So Joshua burned A.I.[b] and made it a permanent heap of ruins, a desolate place to this day. 29 He impaled the body of the king of A.I. on a pole and left it there until evening. At sunset, Joshua ordered them to take the body from the pole and throw it down at the entrance of the city gate. And they raised a large pile of rocks over it, which remains to this day.
YOU (or someone) made the positive statement that God has committed malfeasance. Now, provide us on what basis you make this statement.See how Hoops works?
She has no actual evidence that the people of the city of A.I. (for instance) deserved to be ruthlessly massacred by the forces led by Joshua.
Assuming we can come to a consensus on what "ethics" should apply to God... no, who He is does not change. The situations change. I'm sorry if you can't understand that... but that is our position.So your deity's ethics (which are presumably the ones he would like us to practise too) are situational, are they? No absolute right or wrong? That's funny, he doesn't seem to express himself that way very often. It's more like this: