'There are many paths to god.'

Nope, it does not say the Jews were superior, just chosen. Big difference.

Genocide/will of God is a tricky matter. Those that accept there is a sovereign God have no problem with this. Those that do not think God should be sovereign do not like this.

Should we discuss this?

 

I'll go as far as I can.


"Don't we all come from the same source, one way or another?"


This is true, but things were prophecied about Jesus coming directly from the bloodline of the Jews. And keep in mind that the Jews were supposed to be a set-apart people. This was important for some reason.

 

"Those that do not think God should be sovereign do not like this."

Does might make right?

"This was important for some reason."

A non-Christian might call it a plot hole.

 

A few responses to various people:

Surprising that c.s. lewis, one of the main people christians bring up to defend their position, never cosidered this common sense option.

He did, in Mere Christianity, and then rejected it. If a person is going to be even the slightest bit consistant, they cannot accept only part of a record while rejecting another part (without clear evidence). If you are to accept any of Christ's teachings in the Bible, then you must accept all of them. Christ was either everything he said he was (the Son of God and Redeemer of mankind) or he was a fake, a charlatan and a liar. If you claim he was a prophet, then you reject many of his teachings. If he was in error about being the Son of God, then he was a false prophet. God would not send a false prophet to give true teachings.

What proof is there that Christ never existed? None. Did Josephus know Christ personally? No. However, that paragraph about Christ has been found in the oldest manuscripts of his works. You can only claim that he never existed if you reject every scrap of proof offered to you, but then using that technique you can deny that any historical figure existed. [sarcasm]After all, records can be faked.[/sarcasm]

What a lucky guy. Where do you suppose God was for the six million others who died?

I am LDS. In the Book of Mormon, there was a group of people who came to accept the gospel. When this angered the other people in the land of Ammonihah, they cast the believers into a great fire. Two prophets, Alma and Amulek were forced to watch as this happened. In Alma 14 it describes what happened:

And when Amulek saw the pains of the women and children who were consuming in the fire, he also was pained; and he said unto Alma: How can we witness this awful scene? Therefore let us stretch forth our hands, and exercise the power of God which is in us, and save them from the flames.

But Alma said unto him: The Spirit constraineth me that I must not stretch forth mine hand; for behold the Lord receiveth them up unto himself, in glory; and he doth suffer that they may do this thing, or that the people may do this thing unto them, according to the hardness of their hearts, that the judgments which he shall exercise upon them in his wrath may be just; and the blood of the innocent shall stand as a witness against them, yea, and cry mightily against them at the last day. (Alma 14:10-11, emphasis added.)

Because God left each of us to decide for ourselves, he allows the wicked to do wrong. This is so that they are free to choose. If he were to deny us the ability to do wrong, we would have no purpose in living, because we would not be able to learn, grow or progress.

Why didn't God send a Western Jesus, Eastern Jesus, Northern Jesus, and Southern Jesus, all at the same time, all across the globe?

Christ was the only being who could perform the Atonement, giving us the opportunity to reconcile ourselves with God. Because of its very nature, the Atonement had to be infinite, covering every sin, every pain, every mistake made or felt by every person who ever lived or who would ever live. If you were God and knew that your son would have to suffer infinitely, would you want more than one person to have to do that? No. It would be unnecessary, because one infinite Atonement would be as good as 100,000 infinite Atonements. (Infinity times anything is still infinity.)

Besides, there is enough fragmentation in the world of religion of without adding more Saviors to the mix. Just imagine: "Jesus #1 is the way to salvation!" "No! It comes through #2 and #4!" "Fools! Jesuses #1-3 will save you!" etc. It would increase the confusion, not lessen it.

But that's trusting one man's word. It's a hard thing to do with no corobborating evidence.

Don't all believers in Islam trust in the words of Mohammed? Don't christians trust in the words of Christ? Don't B

 

I'm not getting banned for arguing against genocide.

 

They were set apart because they were the descendents of the people God chose along the way. Adam to Noah to Abraham to Isaac to Jacob. Then through David to Christ.

 

Cydonia, you can't use the Taliban to disprove the beliefs of any other group on the planet. You know that.

Do you know the difference between an SS officer murdering a camp victim and a Wermacht(sp?) soldier shooting an enemy soldier? The difference is in the justification. If there is a God who has the legitimate power of life and death, then using that power is not wrong.

 

"If you are to accept any of Christ's teachings in the Bible, then you must accept all of them. Christ was either everything he said he was (the Son of God and Redeemer of mankind) or he was a fake, a charlatan and a liar. If you claim he was a prophet, then you reject many of his teachings. If he was in error about being the Son of God, then he was a false prophet. God would not send a false prophet to give true teachings."

Common sense is the possilbility that some ancient story got embellished and grew out of control to the point we are justifying genocide. If CS Lewis couldn't see that, then i understand why he was such a good fantasy writer.

"If you were God and knew that your son would have to suffer infinitely, would you want more than one person to have to do that? No. It would be unnecessary, because one infinite Atonement would be as good as 100,000 infinite Atonements. (Infinity times anything is still infinity.) "

God is a child molestor. He made the rules and tortured his own son instead of admitting he made a mistake by letting Satan lead Adam astray in the first place. God loved us so much that he killed his only son. On earth that will give you life in prison, and no one will say "Because he loved him, that's why he's a murderer". I guess that lady who drowned her children in the bathtub is the embodiment of god's love.

"Don't all believers in Islam trust in the words of Mohammed? Don't christians trust in the words of Christ? Don't Buddhists trust in the words of Buddha?"

Buddha wasn't god. Buddha wasn't considered to be God. There's even another big difference between Buddhism and the other two religions you menitoned. Buddhists don't care for genocide.

"Atheism runs against basic principles of logic. You cannot prove that God does not exist unless you have infinite knowledge. You have no more corobborating evidence for atheism than you do for any other religion.

Atheism only has as its evidence a "lack" of evidence."

Lol. And you have no evidence i'm an atheist! Ha. I believe in something or someone or whatever, but like Darth Geist's sig, i don't pretend to know. Yes, i believe in some sort of divine intelligence. Which makes me an athiest i suppose.

"Atheism only has as its evidence a "lack" of evidence."

Well, if atheism has just as much lack of evidence as christianity or any other genocide religion, then that means whatever God i can make up is just as real. It has the same lack of evidence and is therefore just as true.

 

"Do you know the difference between an SS officer murdering a camp victim and a Wermacht(sp?) soldier shooting an enemy soldier? The difference is in the justification. If there is a God who has the legitimate power of life and death, then using that power is not wrong."


That's what i'm saying, the taliban had god on their side and are right. They say so, their book says to kill all infidels. I don't think we disagree.

 

I believe that there are many paths to God, although I think the Catholic church is the most correct path. We are all God's children and equal in his eyes, so if we are good people, God will reward us in the afterlife.

Why would God even bother to create people and damn them to hell for eternity just because they believed incorrectly? Why wouldn't he just save himself the effort and not create them? To punish someone for something they cannot control is evil.

I don't believe that the whole bible should be taken as fact, word for word. Alot of it is fable and symbolism. So, my opinion on the whole genocide thing is that it either didn't happen and was added as a sort of fictionalized war story generations later, or did happen but not by the authority of God. I could never accept a god that would not only approve, but command the murder of children.

 

And i agree with you, littleladyvader. Not the catholic thing, the loving god who isn't a murderer thing.

 

Let's not get into the Taliban having any god on their side. They were a fanatic political organization using the guise of religion to impose their own influence over an opressed people.

 

"Let's not get into the Taliban having any god on their side. They were a fanatic political organization using the guise of religion to impose their own influence over an opressed people."

Yes, that is just the polar opposite of the real chosen people, the jews, and what they did. Not even close to similar.

 

LLV, do you believe that God in his love took Enoch home with him? That he appointed Jesus' hour to die and pay for the sins of the world? And that Abraham died at his good old age because that was the time appointed to him?

 

I always assume an implied " " after Cydonia's posts.



"This is true, but things were prophecied about Jesus coming directly from the bloodline of the Jews. And keep in mind that the Jews were supposed to be a set-apart people."

God's all powerful right? I'm sure he could have found some other way to keep the Jews 'pure' than killing innocent women and children.

 

cydonia,

Common sense is the possilbility that some ancient story got embellished and grew out of control to the point we are justifying genocide. If CS Lewis couldn't see that, then i understand why he was such a good fantasy writer.

How do you decide what is common sense? When you start to interpret the records using "common sense" you are throwing out evidence. How do you know that your "common sense" is any better than mine or any other person's?

God is a child molestor. He made the rules and tortured his own son instead of admitting he made a mistake by letting Satan lead Adam astray in the first place. God loved us so much that he killed his only son. On earth that will give you life in prison, and no one will say "Because he loved him, that's why he's a murderer". I guess that lady who drowned her children in the bathtub is the embodiment of god's love.

I have news for you, but Christ was a volunteer. He even said it himself many times. Take a look at John 10:17, "...because I lay down my life, that I might take it again." (emphasis added). Jesus chose to follow the Father's plan (see Matt 26:42). It was no mistake for Adam to be tempted by Satan. If he had not fallen, we would not have had the opportunity to learn and grow (the Fall introduced the idea of opposition, without which you cannot learn). The Atonemnet was necessary to let us be able to progress farther.

Buddha wasn't god. Buddha wasn't considered to be God. There's even another big difference between Buddhism and the other two religions you menitoned. Buddhists don't care for genocide.

My point was how do they know that their way is right?

And you have no evidence i'm an atheist!

I never said that you were an atheist. I was only pointing out that all religious beliefs (including the belief in nothing) are ultimately based on the words or thoughts of one person.

Well, if atheism has just as much lack of evidence as christianity or any other genocide religion, then that means whatever God i can make up is just as real. It has the same lack of evidence and is therefore just as true.

If a man is murdered, but there is no evidence as to who did it, does that mean that no one is guilty of the crime? (Assuming that the person was murdered, and didn't just die in an accident.) Lack of evidence does not mean that all options are true, just like lack of evidence in a murder case does not mean that all suspects are guilty.

Kimball Kinnison

 

LLV, do you believe that God in his love took Enoch home with him? That he appointed Jesus' hour to die and pay for the sins of the world? And that Abraham died at his good old age because that was the time appointed to him?


Enoch - probably
Jesus - yes, but his purpose isn't just to pay for sins, but to show us God's love and be an example of how to live.
Abraham - I'm not certain about the whole age thing. Many early civilizations exhagerated their hero's ages to show their rightousness.

Theres a difference in God choosing a time for someone to die, and having them murdered.

 

So you agree that God determines the times of our deaths?

 

Yes

 

So what is the difference in God taking an 80 year old man home and what happened to the Canaanites other than the method? Either way, God is in charge.

 

Kimball, remember when i said this?

"I believe in something or someone or whatever, but like Darth Geist's sig, i don't pretend to know."

Just wanted to be sure because you failed to quote it with all the other quotes from me which lead you to believe i pretend to know everything.

If i get caught up in your argument style pretty soon i'll be saying that i'm a polar bear because there's no evidence that ice cream makes itself. You create little labyriths of thought to give yourself the knowledge that you can never be proven wrong with your masterful riddles. And that's great. Just use your own style of reasoning then and say i'm right because i have as much reason to believe i am right as you do. Then we can live in peace and harmony and feel overjoyed at charlotte church records.

 

"What proof is there that Christ never existed?"

The same amount of proof that Mr. Ed never existed. The burden of proof is on those who argue in the affirmative.

"Did Josephus know Christ personally? No. However, that paragraph about Christ has been found in the oldest manuscripts of his works."

That one paragraph. Why so little, for such a great man? Because he had nothing else to go on, perhaps, than the little he'd heard from others? And again, how did a man who drew multitudes wherever he went, and performed miracles on an epic scale in front of thousands of witnesses, go completely unnoticed by every single historian from his own time?

"You can only claim that he never existed if you reject every scrap of proof offered to you..."

I wouldn't call a small batch of unverifiable thirdhand accounts "proof;" if I did, I'd believe in leprechauns.

"...but then using that technique you can deny that any historical figure existed."

As I've said, people still live who remember the various historical figures of this century. Prior to that, we have the personal memoirs of nearly every president there's ever been. As far as quantifiable evidence goes, Jesus isn't in anywhere near the same ballpark.

 

Because murder is wrong. Why would God say "Thou shalt not murder", and then have his army butcher thousands of innocent people who just happened to be the wrong race and religion, living in the wrong area. And after the soldiers had massacred the women and children, what kind of people would they be? I think it would corrupt their souls and turn them towards evil. Why would God want his people to go through the trauma of killing the innocent? It makes no sense. Thats why I choose to believe those chapters of the bible are only fable. It just doesn't fit with what I believe about God.

 

Why couldn't god just have made a rapture? "All these people will mix with the pure jewish race, i can't have that. They must die. Rather than making them die peaceful deaths, i'll just let my chosen people have a butchering party."

 

But in either case, God is taking life. What about when a newborn baby dies? You acknowledge this is God. What about when a drunk driver causes a wreck that kills an innocent person? Either way God is taking an innocent life. I don't see a difference.

If God has set the times of our deaths, methods don't matter.