DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... God is Angry

A God of mercy and love but has anger issues towards his children who he allows to act in monstrous ways . ( lemme guess this is where the free will rhetoric comes in )
A God who could end the entirety of humanity in a blink for its crimes against him yet will bask in the misery and suffering of his children while seeing who will make the " choice " to follow him ?

A God whose word preaches murder , incest, rape, torture, infacide, fratricide, exclusion , theft , ....man, your God needs therapy .

a. God does not allow His children to act in monstrous ways. If they are His children, He will discipline them just like any good Father would do, and some who say they are His children are not His children. The Bible says "you will know them by their fruits"...

b. If He ended the misery in this world right now in a blink, billions of people would suffer for eternity.

c. Children who die in innocency are under grace and get a free pass to heaven because Jesus died for them and they are too young to receive the gift.

d. You consider the actions of God in the Old Testament where the Israelites went to war murder, and before we get into that topic, (which would take awhile and should be treated by itself), let's knock off some of the other ACCUSATIONS against God that you made (which won't take long to answer).

1. Where does God's Word preach incest?
2. Where does God's Word preach rape? (I know the passage that you think does, but you are WRONG)
3. Where does God's word teach torture?
4. Where does God's Word teach fraticide?
5. Where does God's Word teach theft?
6. What do you mean by exclusion? (Please specify)

BOOK, CHAPTER, AND VERSE PLEASE. Then we will look at each passage closely and see if your arguments hold water.

...So I can give you the same answers to these that I have given probably a dozen or more times to others.

1. Lot and his daughters.

i'll become a christian when they allow polygamy.

i mean, damn near all of them had multiple wives, right? why is it illegal?

didn't king david have hundreds? same with solomon.

So you present an argument that is a logical fallacy (non sequitur) as the reason why you are not a christian?

You do realize that what you just said is a non-sequitur, right? Do you want me to explain why?

Besides that, King David did not have hundreds of wives, and Solomon's polygamy is what led to his downfall. But that is beside the point.

i know why, as my post was made in jest just to screw around with 40 cents.

it's no disrespect toward you bro.


i will say this: you, YTown, and Razor are at least consistent with your beliefs.

i've said this before, one thing that is ruining the image of christians in this country is that you guys have way too many part-timers.

what i mean by that is that there's too many people that wanna be christian only when it's the popular thing to do.

First you would need to find out if GM will share corn and fish with you.

Thank you. I consider that a grand compliment. I still have a LONG way to go in that, (as Jesus is the absolute Standard of that) but God's working on me.

As to the rest of your post, ( I would quote the rest, but I'm having trouble finding the quote function in the edit post page) I somewhat agree that inconsistency among professing Christians is a big problem, but Christians nowadays are not knocked for that as much as they are knocked for their beliefs and convictions.

...and true Christianity is far from popular.

But I'm sorry I took your post too literally/seriously. There's just a lot of misinformation flying around about what the Bible teaches, and I thought you were using a common argument that Anti-theists use.

just to be clear, just in case, i'm not an atheist. just agnostic. i believe in a higher power, just not the religions that go along with it.

What a lie! That is a historical account of what happened, not an endorsement of conduct.

I did not mean to imply that you were an atheist. I was just saying that some of the arguments that are commonly used were invented by atheists and are not based on a careful understanding of the Bible, but rather presuppositions.

I'm not too hip on religion either. I go to church, pray, and worship God, but it's much more than a religion to me.

So because something is recorded in the Bible, that means that God endorsed it/commanded it.

So if a newspaper reports a murder, does that mean that the reporter and the newspaper endorses that murder? Or if a historian records an event, say Hitler's holocaust, does his recording of the event mean he endorses and approves of it?

AMEN!

By his logic we should all be impregnating our friends wives then conspiring to have them killed in battle.

LOL!

that goes against what other christians tell the masses that the bible is a perfect book then.

if you look at the many threads that deal with religion on this board, plenty of people have said the bible is God's words.

so for people who aren't christian, there's literally no other way to interpret that.

which leads to the question: If the christian God is a perfect entity, for he is all knowing, then why would he create a book that is imperfect, as it leads to the most consequential problem in todays world: interpretation?

if the christian god is perfect, then the bible should've been perfect, and not left to interpretation.

You either have to open the book and spend some time in it or not make comments like this.
A ten year old Sunday school student can differentiate between the 'thou shalls' and 'thou shalt nots' and the 'then these guys did this'.
It is very easy to tell the difference.

It's not that the Bible is imperfect. It is honest.

God's people fail and make mistakes. God doesnt lie about it or cover it up, but puts it out there so we can learn from it.

God is perfect, but His people are not. His Word is perfect because it records things as they are.

why should i refrain from making any comments?

christians are the ones telling me that the bible is perfect. i didn't make that claim.

Because you obviously don't know what you're talking about. Like I said, a little kid could tell the difference between a commandment and a historical account.

But you can't.

within the bible? sure a little kid who goes to bible study can.

but you're basically saying im unintelligent because i have trouble understanding historical context from a book?

a 6,000 year old book? thats based off religion.

ok bro. i keep my disrespectful comments directly toward you and your faith to a minimum cause you're my brother, but this is starting to annoy me.

Why does the TRUTHFULNESS of a book make it imperfect?

God put the history of His people in His book warts and all so that we can LEARN from history. Isnt that the purpose of history.

So the more accurate a history is to the actual events, the more perfect it is. And you are faulting the Bible for it's accuracy.

Are you saying it is accurate and truthful to a fault?

...and the Bible is not based off religion, there is a HUGE difference between religion and revelation.

I appreciate that, but if you're not going to look into it enough to get even a small grasp of what's in there what am I supposed to tell you?
If you wanna be objective about it then you're also gonna have to differentiate between the people who genuinely want to learn (I place you in that category-alone I might add) and those who only want to stir up trouble, like rocket did with his little Lot and his daughters comment and IRE45 and his comments.

so is the book perfect or not?

you and Ted have said everything else, but have danced around the question. according to Ted, i'm not allowed to comment because other christians have told me the book is perfect.

so i'm wrong for asking the question? or am i wrong for challenging the position?

so LA, you're saying the book itself isn't a religion, but the religion is centered around the book?

So is jesus not a christian then?

you guy's response just fills my head up with more questions. As far as historical accuracy, that's debatable, as people are still debating about it today.

but if we're gonna use the bible as a historical document, then every religion can lay claim to that as well.

so who's religion is right?

i've read the bible, i've read the Qur'an.

i attempt to get where you guys are coming from, but i don't go into reading the book with the intentions of converting.

but some of the questions are viable.

A: Yes the bible is perfect.
B: You asked why the incident between Lot and his daughters should t be considered an endorsement and I told you why.

i never asked that question about the daughter. wrong dude.

You mean like keeping the seventh day as the Sabbath? That kind of commandment while you observe Sunday?

I'll try to take one question at a time...

a. Yes, the Bible is perfect. The imperfections of the people in the Bible does not make the Bible less than perfec.

b. No, the FAITH is centered around the book.

c. No, Jesus is technically not a Christian, HE is the CHRIST. Christians are followers of Christ.

d. The true religion (if I must use that word), is the one who worships the TRUE GOD. I know what is the true faith, because I know the true God.

Jesus said "if you do His (the Father's) will, you will know the true teaching.

Christianity is a faith of revelation. I can't debate or argue you into becoming a Christian. All I can do is share the reason for my hope with you and pray that GOD reveals Himself to you. It is impossible to convert someone to Christianity by human reason alone. There has to be a work of God in the other person's life. And that work must be received and not resisted by the hearer. So I am doing my part, trusting God to do what only He can do, and hoping that you will receive it when it comes.

There's a reason why the Sabbath commandment is the only of the Ten commandments not repeated in the New Testament. Listen to what Rabbi Paul said about the matter.

Colossians 2: 16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.

I challenge you...can you find ONE place in the Bible where Gentiles (non Jews) are commanded to keep the Sabbath? And one place where the church is commanded to keep the Sabbath?

You go back and read what you wrote right after LA posted his LOL and tell me that's not how I should interpret that.

I'm impressed you've read the Bible, front to back, as well as the Qur'an, front to back.

it was a general question, not a response to whatever conversation you was involved in with another poster.

but thanks for helping me prove a point:

"...and tell me that's not how I should interpret that."

which is what my question was originally, if the bible is so perfect, then why is it left to interpretation? it should be clear cut "this is how it is and suppose to be".

yes, and it suck( trying to read those thick ass books, not the book itself)

but reading, interpretation, and understanding are three completely different things, as i'm sure you're aware of.

It is clear cut.

Not to mention in Pauls letter to the Corinthians where he's talking about taking up the offering for poor Jewish believers he says 'when you gather in the first day of the week', he doesn't reproved them for it and if anyone was going to deprive you for something it would've been Paul.

AND ON TOP OF THAT JESUS CAME OUT THE TOMB ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK!

That's all I need right there.

well obviously not, as you can tell by the abundance of different denominations, and the fact that there are two other major religions based off the old testament, with their own spin on things.

So, you've read each, front to back. Did you get any insight from other books helping to explain each?

The Bible is full of, as someone else said, "shall, and shall not". It's also a history.

The historic parts of the Bible (I've not read the other one) are just that - a history.

And again, I'm impressed that you took the time to read the Bible through completely, and attempt to understand it. That was no small task.

no, as interpretation should come from one's self, not from the interpretation of another.

I edited my reply, obviously after your response. The last sentence was my edit.