The Bible is Mathematically Impossible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-10-2011, 12:00 AM
RE: The Bible is Mathematically Impossible
Don't worry I'm not going to bite....

Quote:S.T.Ranger Wrote:
I literally shudder at who I was, though, and am glad to have an awareness of the reality of that person...

I do not believe you ever were bad or participated in evil as it is not possible that you ever weren't a born again christian. The fact that you are saved now is proof through lack of spiritual evidence that you could not have been a non-believer. If you had been a non-christian you would still be one, but because you are not a non-christian, you never were. Therefore, what you have told us about your past is in fact, not a fact.

Sounds absurd doesn't it? I think it does. In truth, I don't disbeleive your stories S.T. because this is utterly absurd... though strangely familiar. If I had a spirit genie in a bottle to add, I suppose I could make it true.

'just playing...

Who can turn skies back and begin again?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2011, 05:52 AM (This post was last modified: 11-10-2011 06:15 AM by S.T. Ranger.)
RE: The Bible is Mathematically Impossible
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2011, 08:09 AM
RE: The Bible is Mathematically Impossible
Hello Sines, the posts are again not posting, And I will break this up as there are things said that do not reflect my feelings on certain issues.


(10-10-2011 09:22 PM)Sines Wrote:  
(10-10-2011 05:39 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  I know it seems barbaric, and to a certain extent I agree, it is. However, the importance of Israel being a people apart from the world (in this case, those of the land that God would give them) was a matter of utmost importance. While the directive to kill those that broke the law sounds severe, there are two things I consider when trying to understand the severity. First, there were in all probablity very few times this would have to have been carried out, as the penalty itself would have surely been a deterrant for most actually engaging in the behavior mentioned.

And secondly, even when it was broken, there was of course a human element to contend with, meaning, it is doubtful that the penalty was always exacted. Of course this latter is speculation, because when we see an equivalent in our society, we usually carry out the sentence, though again, there is a human element, such as plea bargaining, sentences being turned over, et cetera.




So, if I raped, tortured and murdered a small child only a few times, I wouldn't be THAT much of a monster?

How did we go from examining the law concerning adultery to this?

In the above quote, what I am attempting to point out is that in any society, laws are not always carried out in the extreme sentence. Just as in our society crimes that warrant death are sometimes commuted, and that is the human element aspect in carrying out the law. I believe this was also present in Hebrew culture, even in so ancient a time.

When it comes to rape, and especially where children are concerned, I have a zero tolerance, and zero mercy. There are no circumstances at this time that I feel would sway me in that opinion.

You take a position that adultery is less worthy of death than this crime, and to that I would agree, however, we are not talking about modern day America, we are talking about Israel being given laws to govern them as they are made a witness nation for God Himself. You can view this as "just really harsh of God," but the importance of being a holy witness for God is not secluded to ancient Israel, but also applies to the born again believer today: the penalty for the sinning Christian can be, at times...physical death.

So I am a little biased when it comes to looking at the death penalty assigned to those of Israel for adultery (and again pedophilia has nothing to do with the scriptures viewed, nor has it, until this post, been relevant to our discussion).

Do I believe it possible for a born again believer to fall into adultery...I do. Will I then question God if He chooses to end that person's life? Nope. Not for me to give counsel to God, but to take counsel from Him.

If you did, as you hypothetically propose, raped (even once), tortured (even once, or killed a child (intentionally), and I sat on the jury...you would be put to death. And there would not be an ounce of sympathy from me. Not even if there were extenuating circumstances, such as, you were drunk, drugged up, et cetera.



(10-10-2011 09:22 PM)Sines Wrote:  Cause that's what you're saying.

No, not at all.

(10-10-2011 09:22 PM)Sines Wrote:  It's not so bad because it wasn't done too often.

You missed my point: the law is a deterrant, and occasions to enforce that law were affected by the severity of the penalty.

As I tried to point out, if we had laws such as "cutting off the offending part," such as some countries, how do you think that would affect the stats? Look at the statistics of the countries that enforce such severe penalties, and compare them with lawyer ridden America.

Now, before this is interpreted that I think a thief should have his hand cut off...I don't. However, when it comes to atrocities such as rape and pedophilia (which is rape itself), I might be very inclined to support just such a law, as this is as heinous as it gets. This is where those who are innocent are defiled, and it happens because they cannot defend themselves. And one thing I believe is part and parcel with a true American Spirit is the defense of the defenseless. How sad it is that today a man will spend more time in jail for dealing drugs (and I do not want to devalue the amount of horror and harm they cause) than those who murder and rape.

It just is not equitable.


(10-10-2011 09:22 PM)Sines Wrote:  And yet, in this same post, you say that there should be zero tolerance for drunk driving.

That's right. In the Navy, there is a zero tolerance. I think this helps.


(10-10-2011 09:22 PM)Sines Wrote:  So... a society can murder a few people for crimes not worthy of death,

You say murder, but there is a difference between murder and punishment. A jury who finds a man guilty and hands down the death penalty does not murder this man, they are enforcing the penalty of law.



(10-10-2011 09:22 PM)Sines Wrote:  but a guy can't make one bad decision without ruining his whole life?

And ruining countless other lives? You seem to think that drunk driving is the result of a "bad decision," and I agree in part. However, the drunk that gets in a car and drives does so with full knowledge of what he is doing, and has decided that his determination is better than the law. The law forbids driving while intoxicated, and when that law is broken, sorry, but there is no excuse.

We could think of extenuatng circumstances, such as, "My wife needed to get to the hospital, and I was the only one to take her," and even that would be a sorry excuse. Though I would suggest that a life threatening condition in one's spouse would probably sober someone up.

Drunk driving is as serious as the mishandling of guns. If one mishandles a gun, most would agree that this person, by their own actions, caused the unfortunate incident. Guns in the hands of people who are not mature enough to properly handle them is no different than a vehicle in the hands of one not mature enough to handle it.

If a person had a gun, and in anger shot someone else, ending their life, would you be ready to make excuses for them? Would that have been a "bad decision?"

So yes, zero tolerance for those who drink and drive, and I believe such policy would lower the number of people who die each year at the hands of irresponsible people.


(10-10-2011 09:22 PM)Sines Wrote:  Second, you also try to justify it because people didn't do it that often.

That was speculation, and I said so. I say it again: if the penalty is more severe, the less it will occur. We can see the stats that prove this.

Because we don't have a thorough record of events from that time, we are left to speculate about the number of times the penalty was enforced.

There is a New Testament event in which a woman cught in the act of adultery was brought to Jesus. He did not tell them, "You are justified...go stone her." He said, "Let him that hath no sin...cast the first stone."

The law was given for three primary reasons:

1) to give Israel guidelines that would lead to holy living (because they were "representatives" of God).

2) to show man his sin (when we look at the law, and then our lives, we will be pricked in our conscience).

3) to lead men to Christ (and because revelation was limited, the understanding of Israel was that God was Savior, and that they were in need of His intervention for salvation, which in the Old Testament, because revelation was limited, this has a primarily temporal sense, though we can in retrospect see the spiritual intent of the law, such as, "Thou shalt not covet," meaning that wrong-doing begins in the heart).

However, because man is incapable of keeping the law, this should have led them to a greater dependance on God's mercy as well as evoked a sympathy for his fellow man. This is why the New Covenant being ushered in in this age is so important, and why the lives of those who are children of God are to be lived with that in mind. We should, as Christians, be able to live peacably among men, having concern for their welfare.


(10-10-2011 09:22 PM)Sines Wrote:  Which means they weren't following gods law.

There is a "following of God's law" that is very apparent, which is a religious, ritualistic keeping of the law...devoid of what the law should instill in the follower. The Pharisees, Sadducees, Scribes, and Lawyers (men who interpreted the law) are given as examples of this shallow, surface following.

The "Good Samaritan," on the other hand, is given to illistrate God's intent in the heart of man. This man, unlike the Priest and Levite, who surely "followed" the law concerning ritual more closely than the Samaritan, performed in his actions what the law was meant to instill in the heart of God's people through the law.

(10-10-2011 09:22 PM)Sines Wrote:  And besides, that just means the people were behaving good.

And I believe some did, actually, like the Samaritan.

(10-10-2011 09:22 PM)Sines Wrote:  God, who made the law, is still enacting disproportionate punishments.

According to you, maybe. But the importance of living holy lives and being separate from their neighbors cannot be undervalued. God's judgment fell on all that lived disobediently to His revealed will, and this judgment, even as today, is harsher upon those that belong to Him than those who do not.

God does not put to death the unbeliever due to sin, but He will end the life of the believer that engages in sin.

(10-10-2011 09:22 PM)Sines Wrote:  
Quote:Personally, when it comes to rape, stoning is, in my opinion, a mercy that I would probably not give, especially if it involved someone I loved, say, a family member. In some countries, they cut off the offending part, and in the case of this crime, I think this penalty would all but wipe out this atrocity.

Stoning is a mercy?

Yes. What would be worse, an instantaneous death, or castration? What is worse, the electric chair, or the needle?

Now just so I am clear, what I meant that hypothetically in our country, if castration (and I do not mean chemical) was the penalty of rape, how do you think that would change the statistics? I think it would lower them, personally.

And in case you are wondering, would I advocate death for the rapist? In some in some cases, I think it might be in order. When children are involved, I would probably lean toward a yes on that.


(10-10-2011 09:22 PM)Sines Wrote:  Stranger, here's something you might need to read.

dictionary.com Wrote:mer·cy [mur-see]
noun, plural -cies for 4, 5.
1.
compassionate or kindly forbearance shown toward an offender, an enemy, or other person in one's power; compassion, pity, or benevolence: Have mercy on the poor sinner. Nope, no stoning...


And this is what I was trying to point out. Do you think that there was no-one among the Israelites that might not have had compassion, and not exacted the death penalty? Again, this is speculation. And again, the ancient Hebrew culture is far different than our modern culture.


(10-10-2011 09:22 PM)Sines Wrote:  2.
the disposition to be compassionate or forbearing: an adversary wholly without mercy. Wholly without mercy? That sounds like an angry stoning mob!

In order to make this analogous, you would have to insert a Judge in place of the "angry mob."


(10-10-2011 09:22 PM)Sines Wrote:  3.
the discretionary power of a judge to pardon someone or to mitigate punishment, especially to send to prison rather than invoke the death penalty. Stoning is the death penalty. Definitely not this one

And this more closely resembles what we are talking about. The execution of a criminal is not carried out by the general population. When it is, this also is contrary to our laws. Vigilanteism is, at least the last time I checked...against the law.

But our Judicial system, again, is far different in many ways, some good some bad, from the law given to Israel.

(10-10-2011 09:22 PM)Sines Wrote:  4.
an act of kindness, compassion, or favor: She has performed countless small mercies for her friends and neighbors. I'd rather have someone do my laundry than throw rocks at my head.


This again is displaced from what we are talking about, which is specific law, specific penalty. Not the kind acts toward neighbors. If your neighbor simply threw rocks through all of your windows while you were away, how much mercy would you be willing to show that person. Now what if that neighbor threw rocks at your mom...? Again, how much mercy would you extend?

So the analogy breaks down when apples are exchanged for oranges.


(10-10-2011 09:22 PM)Sines Wrote:  5.
something that gives evidence of divine favor; blessing: It was just a mercy we had our seat belts on when it happened.God is definitely not showing his favor here, what with all the killing.

Do you also hold the judges in this country that rape and kill children in contempt? Because they impose a death sentence (which is not swift, but leaves the criminal alive to await many years for his death?

I would insert at this point that I do agree that there should be a particular timeframe so that it is proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the man is guilty, something made both easier and more difficult due to forensic science.

(10-10-2011 09:22 PM)Sines Wrote:  
Quote:To get back to your question, though, do I think death for adultery is too high a penalty? That is a little difficult for me to answer, as I have not been in the shoes of one who's spouse cheated on them (though I had a girlfriend once...). Some today do not see adultery as a big deal, but it is, really.


Agreed, adultery is a big deal. Anyone who doesn't think it is is an utter *******..

Which was my point: it is not a matter that I would wish to see my wife put to death (and I have no idea how you got this impression) if she committed adultery, it is a matter of I have not experienced it, so I cannot tell you how I would feel. I would like to think that I would find it in my heart to forgive her, and not to divorce her (which is permitted for the Christian who's spouse has been unfaithful), because that is what I believe the Lord would have me to do.

However, if you do not think that some people would not in fact want their spouse dead due to adultery, you would be sadly mistaken, which is why I suggested that you speak to someone that has experienced it.

There have been people excused for killing their spouse in the past based upon it being in "the heat of passion," and that they were "temporarily insane" because of it. Certain juries would be sympathetic. I myself do not see any excuse for murder, which is distinguished from death concerning the penalty of law. There is a difference.


(10-10-2011 09:22 PM)Sines Wrote:  But I would NEVER advocate death.

Well, I would. Such as in the case of the child rapist/murderer. It sounds very unforgiving, but that is based upon my personal opinion.


(10-10-2011 09:22 PM)Sines Wrote:  Maybe I was wrong about you.


That may very well be true...lol.


(10-10-2011 09:22 PM)Sines Wrote:  That you can't even say, "No, I would not want her dead,"


I can go beyond "No, I would not want her dead," to, I would die in her place.

Understand that I love my wife, and my trust and faith in her is absolute. How you got the impression that I would want my wife put to death if she cheated on me, I can tell you for a fact that I would not. Even in the law, while it seems God is being harsh by imposing this sentence, it was not His desire to put the adulterer to death, it as His desire that they not commit adultery.


(10-10-2011 09:22 PM)Sines Wrote:  means that maybe you are still an evil bastard, and that you're only good because you fear punishment from god?

Lol...whether I am evil or not is determined by my heart. Though I put on a good show of being "good," does not mean that I am. And likewise, because I sound "evil" because of certain things I believe (like the death penalty for drunk drivers and child defilers) does not necessarily mean I am evil.


(10-10-2011 09:22 PM)Sines Wrote:  C'mon. I don't like to think that about people.


Neither do I, but the fact remains there are evil people in this world, and there are laws in place to both discourage certain behavior, as well as punish it when they do.


(10-10-2011 09:22 PM)Sines Wrote:  But if you can't say, "I would not want my wife dead for cheating on me," then that's pretty damning evidence of being a bad person.

Look, I do not believe that anyone other than God can determine who lives or dies (and just so you know, I do believe the law [His and our own current] is established and meant to deal with those who violate this), I know myself well enough to know that if someone threatened my wife, my family, or even I do not know with terminal violence, I would respond in like manner. I am not completely free of rage, and have had a couple instances in the last year where that rage surfaced. I do not think this gives glory to God, but evidences that He is still working on me.

One thing that is funny is that sometimes people push and push and push to the point where when it is responded to in anger they say..."I thought you were supposed to be a Christian!

Well I am, but I am not Jesus Christ. I am a man also, who is learning to live in peace with those around me.

So, the thought of my wife dying for infidelity is absurd to me. And when viewing the laws given to Israel, it has to be understood that those laws were not given to the Church, who live under the New Covenant, not the First Covenant.


And I am sorry, but I will have to end there, I need to get myself to work...I am already late for my first appointment (my discipline is also something I need to work on...lol).

S.T.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2011, 11:49 AM (This post was last modified: 11-10-2011 02:24 PM by Sines.)
RE: The Bible is Mathematically Impossible
Quote:I can go beyond "No, I would not want her dead," to, I would die in her place.

Understand that I love my wife, and my trust and faith in her is absolute. How you got the impression that I would want my wife put to death if she cheated on me, I can tell you for a fact that I would not. Even in the law, while it seems God is being harsh by imposing this sentence, it was not His desire to put the adulterer to death, it as His desire that they not commit adultery.

And it is not my desire that I should put this bullet through your head. It is my desire that you should give me all your money in a gracious act of charity.

Seriously, that is what you just said. Do something good, or die. Or hell, try this on for size...

Sure, I shoot people who don't give me their money. But it's not like I do it often. It's a wonderful deterrent to people not giving me their money.

Sound familiar? Did you notice that neither argument excuses shooting people in the head?

While I'm glad you wouldn't murder your wife for cheating on you, you're still defending a murderer. Saying that's it our fault that god commands our death. That's despicable. That's battered wife syndrome.

God doesn't HAVE to do a fucking thing. If he doesn't want people to be put to death, they won't be put to death. Because Yahweh is supposed to be all powerful. That means he can do any-fucking-thing he wants. If he doesn't want people to cheat on their spouses, he can use his unlimited power to make it happen, all without affecting that free will I hear he cares so much about. How? Fuck if I know how, but what I do know is that a being who can do anything can do that. Or he sure as hell can find a less barbaric way to discourage. Give rewards to those who are faithful, which are taken away from the unfaithful.

Seriously, I don't know what to add. You spent that whole post defending gods blood-lust because it was the best solution he could come up with. Pathetic. Christians always bang on about how god is all-powerful, but when it comes to the OT, or explaining away hell, it's always, "Well, that's the best he can do."

If that's the best he can do with unlimited power, Yahweh is less intelligent than most dogs. He's a pathetic idiot. Unless of course this is the best he can do, because he likes killing people. Because he is jealous and vain. Because he is a tyrant, and this is exactly what he wants to happen. Tears and suffering and all.

Or, far more likely, he doesn't exist, and this is just the primitive morality of a people who were not fortunate enough to know of a superior morality. Really, that makes so much more sense than twisting yourself in knots to explain why an all-powerful, all-loving deity resorts to murder so often, isn't it?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2011, 04:19 PM
RE: The Bible is Mathematically Impossible
(11-10-2011 11:49 AM)Sines Wrote:  
Quote:I can go beyond "No, I would not want her dead," to, I would die in her place.

Understand that I love my wife, and my trust and faith in her is absolute. How you got the impression that I would want my wife put to death if she cheated on me, I can tell you for a fact that I would not. Even in the law, while it seems God is being harsh by imposing this sentence, it was not His desire to put the adulterer to death, it is His desire that they not commit adultery.

And it is not my desire that I should put this bullet through your head. It is my desire that you should give me all your money in a gracious act of charity.

Seriously, that is what you just said. Do something good, or die. Or hell, try this on for size...

Sure, I shoot people who don't give me their money. But it's not like I do it often. It's a wonderful deterrent to people not giving me their money.

Sound familiar? Did you notice that neither argument excuses shooting people in the head?

Hello Sines, thanks for the reply. I will do the best I can with it.

Here you say that I am excusing murder, yet if you believe that exacting the penalty of law upon a lawbreaker is murder, there is just nothing I can do about that. That it is God's law that you have a problem with, and the fact that adultery was punishable by death sounds harsh, not much I can do about that.

However, I can point out that there is a difference between execution of penalty of law and murder, and did so in the last post.

I am sorry I have given the impression that I am making excuses for God. While I may see death for adultery as harsh myself, I will not question it. Knowing the hearts of men, and the need for purity in the lives of the children of Israel (and by "children," I am simply speaking about all of Israel, those who belong to God due to His creation of the nation...not young children).

You seem to have the same opinion of those who put a gun to someone's head as those who have been appointed to mete out sentences. Is this correct?



(11-10-2011 11:49 AM)Sines Wrote:  While I'm glad you wouldn't murder your wife for cheating on you, you're still defending a murderer.

So God is a murderer? Because He imposed a death sentence for those who committed adultery...and listen up...those who raped.

So you stand in defense of rapists...is that it? Curse God because He would put to death those who rape. Think about that.

You have to stand on one side or the other. What is your wise decision for rapists, what sentence would you give them? I myself would think castration a possible solution. What would you decide, if you were placed in the position where you would decide the sentence that should be handed down to a man who brutalized a woman, or worse...a child.

So just tell me this: should a rapist be guilty of death?

(11-10-2011 11:49 AM)Sines Wrote:  Saying that's it our fault that god commands our death. That's despicable. That's battered wife syndrome.

What? That does not even make sense.

Who's fault is it when a man decides to kill someone else. Do you hold the judge and jury as the offenders? Are the men who enact laws of the death penalty in their state murderers also?

But, I understand, you feel that death for adultery is too harsh a sentence, and that God is the offender.

(11-10-2011 11:49 AM)Sines Wrote:  God doesn't HAVE to do a ******* thing. If he doesn't want people to be put to death, they won't be put to death.

And it takes on even worse conditions, because it is not just physical death that is in view, but spiritual death as well. God is not willing that any should perish...but man decides his own fate. No different than the man who puts a gun to someones head, or the drunk that kills due to impairment. It sounds like all of these are excusable...except for God.

(11-10-2011 11:49 AM)Sines Wrote:  Because Yahweh is supposed to be all powerful. That means he can do any-*******-thing he wants.

That is not quite right. God cannot do that which is contrary to His holy nature. God cannot lie, for instance. For God to allow sin to go unpunished would make Him...unjust.

If a man raped and murdered someone you knew...what would be your feelings towards that man? Now, consider how you would feel if in court, the judge decides, "Well, this man had a bad childhood, I don't feel it was his fault that he committed these crimes, so, I am letting him go free."

Would that be right?


(11-10-2011 11:49 AM)Sines Wrote:  If he doesn't want people to cheat on their spouses, he can use his unlimited power to make it happen, all without affecting that free will I hear he cares so much about.

So you think that God should just make robots? He can force people to do things, and in fact, we have a few examples where those who did not wish to obey God's will did so anyway.

But that is where God does make provision, and gives man the ability to live free of desire to disobey, and more importantly, the desire to obey. This also is provision of the New Covenant.


(11-10-2011 11:49 AM)Sines Wrote:  How? **** if I know how,

I do...it was called the First Covenant, in which the Law was given to man.

But it was not a puppet-master rule. Man can decide for himself whether he will obey the law, or break it.

(11-10-2011 11:49 AM)Sines Wrote:  but what I do know is that a being who can do anything can do that.

He can and does, yet...man will still refuse it, choosing instead to do what he wants, to determine right and wrong for himself, and ultimately pay the price.

The laws that govern our land stipulate penalties for certain crimes. Does that keep men from breaking them? In fact, many today despise them. Who is the government to decide that people cannot kill each other as they wish. Or steal. Or rape. Or to drink and drive.

Just as I mentioned before, talk to those who's lives have forever been changed by the decisions of lawbreakers.

Talk to those who have had unfaithful wives, and given them AIDS, or another disease. See what they have to say about the matter.

(11-10-2011 11:49 AM)Sines Wrote:  Or he sure as hell can find a less barbaric way to discourage.

I guess we can find a better way to discourage rape as well, right? Drunk Driving? As for the latter, the laws are stiffening, but it is still happening.

(11-10-2011 11:49 AM)Sines Wrote:  Give rewards to those who are faithful, which are taken away from the unfaithful.

Seriously, I don't know what to add.

Set up a reward system? Sounds like most religions of the world: be good...and God will love you. The problem is, because of man's nature, which you seem to hold in such high esteem, he cannot do good unless everything is going his way. But let circumstances change, and see what happens.

(11-10-2011 11:49 AM)Sines Wrote:  You spent that whole post defending gods blood-lust because it was the best solution he could come up with. Pathetic.

Actually, I spent a good part of it defending myself from an interpretation that I would enjoy my wife being put to death if she cheated on me. Remember that part?

When God manifest in the flesh, Jesus, was presented with a woman caught in the act of adultery...He did not say stone her.

You say God has a blood lust, and I just would like to know, is this opinion based upon your study of God, or study of what others who hate God have had to say?

(11-10-2011 11:49 AM)Sines Wrote:  Christians always bang on about how god is all-powerful, but when it comes to the OT, or explaining away hell,


I do not explain away either the Old Testament, nor Hell. What I do explain away are presentations such as the one you yourself presented. As of yet you still have not admitted that your presentation of mathematical discrepancy was...wrong.

You might also be glad to hear that there are many who call themselves Christians that will in fact "explain away Hell." I do not. I believe Hell to be a real place that those who reject God will choose for themselves to end up in. But I will not get into that, as I am sure this is considered as much a fairy tale as Heaven is.

(11-10-2011 11:49 AM)Sines Wrote:  it's always, "Well, that's the best he can do."

Who says that?

The best He can do is to die in my place, that I do not have to die that death. He did that. It never needs to be repeated.

(11-10-2011 11:49 AM)Sines Wrote:  If that's the best he can do with unlimited power, Yahweh is less intelligent than most dogs. He's a pathetic idiot.


Unless of course this is the best he can do, because he likes killing people. Because he is jealous and vain.

He is jealous. That is a characteristic of His that I share. I am jealous of my wife. I would not anyone harm her. But the concept of jealousy is tainted by the modern usage, and is usually associated with men who mistreat their wives.

My jealousy consists of the desire of my wife to be only for me. I am blessed with a Godly wife, and she has my trust. I do not worry that she will betray me at all.

As far as being vain, well, that cannot be shown in scripture. He is God, after all.



(11-10-2011 11:49 AM)Sines Wrote:  Because he is a tyrant, and this is exactly what he wants to happen. Tears and suffering and all.

If He were a tyrant, he would either force man to His will, or kill them outright when they sinned. But He does not. He gives man the chance to repent. And will do so for far longer than we would give men the opportunity to change.

(11-10-2011 11:49 AM)Sines Wrote:  Or, far more likely, he doesn't exist,

So it is far more likely that He doesn't exist? Careful, that leaves room that He might actually exist.

(11-10-2011 11:49 AM)Sines Wrote:  and this is just the primitive morality of a people who were not fortunate enough to know of a superior morality.

I can assure you that morality in the life of Israel far exceeds that of the morality found in America. Unless you are one that believes that America is a beacon of morality.

How do you feel about abortion...okay with that? Okay with the sexual promiscuity that leads to it? The diseases that are associated with it, and sometimes passed on to babies, who have to live with the "bad decision" their parents made? If they are even allowed to be born at all?

You would not have found abortion to be a rampant problem in this primitive people.

(11-10-2011 11:49 AM)Sines Wrote:  Really, that makes so much more sense than twisting yourself in knots to explain why an all-powerful, all-loving deity resorts to murder so often, isn't it?

I would glad to look at the instances where God murdered someone with you.

Thanks for the response,

S.T.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2011, 04:44 PM
RE: The Bible is Mathematically Impossible
(11-10-2011 04:19 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  I am sorry I have given the impression that I am making excuses for God. While I may see death for adultery as harsh myself, I will not question it.

And this is why I am done. You won't question Yahweh. You won't question the bible. They're right, no matter what, it's just a matter of figuring out how they are right.

I'm done. What can I say to that?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2011, 04:46 PM
RE: The Bible is Mathematically Impossible
(11-10-2011 04:44 PM)Sines Wrote:  
(11-10-2011 04:19 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  I am sorry I have given the impression that I am making excuses for God. While I may see death for adultery as harsh myself, I will not question it.

And this is why I am done. You won't question Yahweh. You won't question the bible. They're right, no matter what, it's just a matter of figuring out how they are right.

I'm done. What can I say to that?

Goodbye, maybe?

S.T.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2011, 11:01 AM
RE: The Bible is Mathematically Impossible
I was wondering if the subject of this post is the best one. When we discuss the bible in this context, wouldn't it be better or more appropriate to call it arithmetic? I am not sure there is anything worthy of the breadth of the term mathematics in the bible. I would propose, "The Bible's Arithmetic is impossible."

Just a thought.

Who can turn skies back and begin again?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2011, 07:31 PM
RE: The Bible is Mathematically Impossible
This thread is seriously starting to remind me of the weed scene from Animal House.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2011, 07:53 AM
RE: The Bible is Mathematically Impossible
(12-10-2011 11:01 AM)defacto7 Wrote:  I was wondering if the subject of this post is the best one. When we discuss the bible in this context, wouldn't it be better or more appropriate to call it arithmetic? I am not sure there is anything worthy of the breadth of the term mathematics in the bible. I would propose, "The Bible's Arithmetic is impossible."

Just a thought.

I would just be curious as to whether you have looked at the premise and the response I gave to it?

And if whether the title, "The OP's Arithmetic is in error" would be a more fitting title?

Not trying to be a smart-alec, but just wondering if anyone other than myself would acknowledge this.



(12-10-2011 07:31 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  This thread is seriously starting to remind me of the weed scene from Animal House.

So you have read it now?

S.T.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: