Does God Lie? I Think So [Archive]

nitecrawlur

1st May 2008, 05:04 PM

I recently had a debate with an individual on the topic of inconsistancies in the Bible. He accused me of only attacking the Bible on the moral topic. Until now, he was correct. So just to be fair and consistant with my theories I have made this thread. This one specifically targets the question: Is God capable of lieing? Most would agree "no" is the answer since it goes against his nature as a God. But the Bible tells quite a different story.

I will start with Hebrews 6:18 that states: "It was impossible for God to lie." Then in Titus 1:2 "In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began" and 2 Samuel 7:28 "Thou art that God, and thy words be true" and in 1 Samuel 15:29 "The Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent". These examples were found without looking very hard and clearly state that God absolutely cannot lie. The Bible itself says so.

As I did this research I found scripture which indicated that God can, indeed, tell a lie whether it be by proxy or not. These are some examples: 1 Kings 22:23 "Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee" 2 Chronicles 18:22 "Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets" Jeremiah 4:10 "Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people" Jeremiah 20:7 "O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived" Ezekiel 14:9 "And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet" and finally 2 Thessalonians 2:11 "For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie". So as you can see for yourself by studying your own Bible, the evidence is clear that your God (assuming you're Christian) can, indeed, lie.

I invite anyone to contest this theory.

Hentenza

1st May 2008, 11:07 PM

nitecrawlur

2nd May 2008, 12:08 AM

NC,

The problem with proof texting verses is that the context is lost. I would suggest that you go back and read the verses that you are using to support your theory in context. Spend a little time attempting to understand the context of the passages and not jumping to conclusions based of a faulty interpretation.
What I have noticed, with this forum in particular, is that I'm the one who is constantly "misinterpreting" the Bible's text. I feel as though this is said simply because I'm an Atheist and Christians assume "what could an Atheist know about Christianity?".

As I have said before, Christianity is very diverse and the Bibles interpretation differs greatly amoung all denominations. I have read the Bible and you may argue, as other have, that I'm superficially reading it. Only willing to see what is on the surface and that there is a deeper meaning to what is written.

I have studied theology for quite some time and I have read the Bible as well. I am aware of how Christians are taught to interpret the Bible. Christians are taught in a way as to not allow the Bible to incriminate itself. That way, it can never be wrong, at least not proven to be "wrong".

What I have found from studying theology is that religion, Christianity more specifically, is evolving. What I mean by that is this religion MUST change in order to stay socially and scientifically acceptable. When I say scientifically I use that term loosely as I am referring to religions constant struggle in changing its story to keep things beyond provablity. It actually evoloves to disallow science from interfering. Which in my opinion is actually de-evolution as it has no interest in the truth but instead prioritizes quanitity of belief over quality of truth. Christianity is a product of its own de-evolution and with the progress of science will collapse on itself as its stories will, eventually, no longer be verifiable by faith as it is gradually debunked with reason, logic, and common sense.

Ironically, no Christian denomination, to my knowledge, can fashion a universal concurrence on its (the Bible) true interpretation. For reasons of hypocracy Christians should not be allowed to accuse Atheists of misinterpretation as we are inclined to our own understanding and opinion of it.

You say my interpretation is faulty. If that is true, you should be able to prove that my interpretation is false with a universal concurrence of the Bible's true interpretation. Otherwise you can only give me your opinion on what the passage is saying since there is no definate meaning. By providing such evidence, I can be sure that I am wrong in addressing it in this context and not to do so again. If you cannot present this such material then it is not fair to say I am wrong in my understanding as your understanding is nothing more than an opinion (theory) as well. Also, simply because you are a Christian and I am not does not give you base to make such claims.

HypnoToad

2nd May 2008, 03:24 PM

Simon_Templar

2nd May 2008, 04:09 PM

What I have noticed, with this forum in particular, is that I'm the one who is constantly "misinterpreting" the Bible's text. I feel as though this is said simply because I'm an Atheist and Christians assume "what could an Atheist know about Christianity?".

As I have said before, Christianity is very diverse and the Bibles interpretation differs greatly amoung all denominations. I have read the Bible and you may argue, as other have, that I'm superficially reading it. Only willing to see what is on the surface and that there is a deeper meaning to what is written.

I have studied theology for quite some time and I have read the Bible as well. I am aware of how Christians are taught to interpret the Bible. Christians are taught in a way as to not allow the Bible to incriminate itself. That way, it can never be wrong, at least not proven to be "wrong".

What I have found from studying theology is that religion, Christianity more specifically, is evolving. What I mean by that is this religion MUST change in order to stay socially and scientifically acceptable. When I say scientifically I use that term loosely as I am referring to religions constant struggle in changing its story to keep things beyond provablity. It actually evoloves to disallow science from interfering. Which in my opinion is actually de-evolution as it has no interest in the truth but instead prioritizes quanitity of belief over quality of truth. Christianity is a product of its own de-evolution and with the progress of science will collapse on itself as its stories will, eventually, no longer be verifiable by faith as it is gradually debunked with reason, logic, and common sense.

Ironically, no Christian denomination, to my knowledge, can fashion a universal concurrence on its (the Bible) true interpretation. For reasons of hypocracy Christians should not be allowed to accuse Atheists of misinterpretation as we are inclined to our own understanding and opinion of it.

You say my interpretation is faulty. If that is true, you should be able to prove that my interpretation is false with a universal concurrence of the Bible's true interpretation. Otherwise you can only give me your opinion on what the passage is saying since there is no definate meaning. By providing such evidence, I can be sure that I am wrong in addressing it in this context and not to do so again. If you cannot present this such material then it is not fair to say I am wrong in my understanding as your understanding is nothing more than an opinion (theory) as well. Also, simply because you are a Christian and I am not does not give you base to make such claims.
One would assume that the entire point of your coming here for conversation is that you want the Christian perspective on your argument.

It doesn't make any sense, then, for you to turn around and say "you shouldn't tell me that I need to look at things from a different perspective".

Particularly when dealing with "evidence" in argument, such as the references yo cite from scripture, you have to recognize that there is more than one way of interpeting the evidence, and if you want to prove your particular argument, you need to prove that your way of interpeting the evidence is the only viable way.

Conversely, if we want to rebutt your argument, all we need to show is that your interpetation is NOT the only viable interpetation.

Thus it is entirely logical, and reasonable that our response to the argument present here is "if you read it in context, it doesn't necessarily mean what you suggest it means."

You are trying to prove a contradiction in the texts which would then either suggest that the text is wrong, or the traditional understanding of it is wrong and as such must evolve.
In order to prove that, you must eliminate all possible interpetations other than the one you offer. If you can't do that, then you haven't proved your point.

Moving on to another aspect of this issue. The fact is, it is almost impossible to really understand a given view point if you don't look at it from the perspective of a believer.

This does not mean you analyse the believer's view point from your own outsider view point. Rather it means you have to put yourself into the "shoes" of a believer, and see things as they see them.

That doesn't mean you have to BE a believer in order to understand, it just means you have to try and see things from that view point. It is difficult, but it can be done.

In response to the thrust of your argument here. I personally don't see a contradiction between God being incapable of telling a lie, and God being able to deceive people through the use of external agents.

In a very similar concept, God is not capable of doing evil, yet he uses evil done by others to accomplish his goals.

This is part of the absolute sovereignty of God. Even though he allows free-will, no matter what anyone does, God will use it to accomplish his plans and purposes.

In the end, even the Devil himself will find that every thing he did, intending to spite God, only served to accomplish God's will.

nitecrawlur

2nd May 2008, 04:51 PM

One would assume that the entire point of your coming here for conversation is that you want the Christian perspective on your argument.

Yes.

It doesn't make any sense, then, for you to turn around and say "you shouldn't tell me that I need to look at things from a different perspective".

That's not what I am trying to say, so I'm sorry if it came off that way.

Particularly when dealing with "evidence" in argument, such as the references yo cite from scripture, you have to recognize that there is more than one way of interpeting the evidence, and if you want to prove your particular argument, you need to prove that your way of interpeting the evidence is the only viable way.

I agree.

Conversely, if we want to rebutt your argument, all we need to show is that your interpetation is NOT the only viable interpetation.

I still agree. But most Christians are unaware that they are allowed to view scripture in a different manner in which they are taught. I have never said that the way any of my opposing debaters have been wrong in their interpretation. They accuse me of being wrong that is why I request proof of them.

Thus it is entirely logical, and reasonable that our response to the argument present here is "if you read it in context, it doesn't necessarily mean what you suggest it means."

Correct.

You are trying to prove a contradiction in the texts which would then either suggest that the text is wrong, or the traditional understanding of it is wrong and as such must evolve.

Not at all. I am sorry that you're seeing it in this manner and I will try to word my posts more properly as to avoid this confusion. I'm simply showing a viewpoint in which Christians aren't taught or aware exists.

In order to prove that, you must eliminate all possible interpetations other than the one you offer. If you can't do that, then you haven't proved your point.

I am only trying to prove that the way Christianity teaches the interpretation is not necessarily the right way. Each denomination teaches it differently so why can't Atheism have it's interpretation. Perhaps a Christian will realize that I have made a valid point and decide to study an issure further. Christianity holds no monopoly on The Holy Bible.

Moving on to another aspect of this issue. The fact is, it is almost impossible to really understand a given view point if you don't look at it from the perspective of a believer.

I have stated before that I was brought up in a Christian home so although my experience as a confirmed Christian is limited, I do have an idea.

This does not mean you analyse the believer's view point from your own outsider view point. Rather it means you have to put yourself into the "shoes" of a believer, and see things as they see them.

I understand and agree.

That doesn't mean you have to BE a believer in order to understand, it just means you have to try and see things from that view point. It is difficult, but it can be done.

I try.

In response to the thrust of your argument here. I personally don't see a contradiction between God being incapable of telling a lie, and God being able to deceive people through the use of external agents.

Lets escelate the intensity of the crime. You're saying that God sending someone to lie is different than him actually executing the lie. I see your point, but lets look at it from this view: If I had an assistant and I told him go shoot somebody and he does, I am just as guilty of murder as he is even though I didn't pull the trigger. Therefore, I murdered. God pulled the hypothetical trigger by allowing his proxy to lie for him, he lied. That is the point I would like to make.

In a very similar concept, God is not capable of doing evil, yet he uses evil done by others to accomplish his goals.

The previous point applies to this but I would like to add something. If God cannot perform evil, why can he create it? If he can create evil and it acts on its own nature, how is that different from doing evil himself?

This is part of the absolute sovereignty of God. Even though he allows free-will, no matter what anyone does, God will use it to accomplish his plans and purposes.

That would ultimately mean free will is useless since no matter what we do, the end product is the same.

In the end, even the Devil himself will find that every thing he did, intending to spite God, only served to accomplish God's will.

I wasn't aware that Christians still viewed the devil as an entity. I guess my view on that is whenever any intelligence caused catastrophe happens, like the Twin Towers, that is the devil (evil).

nitecrawlur

8th May 2008, 01:00 AM

Hebrew writers tend to ignore secondary causation and attribute things to God "doing" them when He merely "allowed" them. The examples you give are people who already chose to ignore the truth. God is only allowing them to believe what they previously decided they wanted to believe.

I guess, perhaps then, that God "allowed" a plague to kill the first born of Egyptians for enslaving the Isrealites? "Allowed" in such a way that a plague is an intelligent entity that is capable of seeking out and targeting children. Innocent children that nothing to do with the slavery other than the fact that their parents caused it. The children that had no control over what their parents did. Thats like saying the bullet I fired is capable of killing on children that happened to be in its path.

The plague was the bullet. The unintelligent force that was incapable of discriminating between old and young. The plague was Gods gun that he aimed at children and pulled the trigger. The plague sent was not capable of being "allowed" to do such a specific act since a virus cannot choose who it wants to infect. Just like HIV, it infects anyone it can when it gets a chance. It does not and cannot discriminate.

HypnoToad

8th May 2008, 02:56 AM

I never said anything about plagues. Pick a topic and stick with it.

nitecrawlur

8th May 2008, 11:01 AM

I never said anything about plagues. Pick a topic and stick with it.

My point was that you said "doing" meant "allowing" since God is not capable of evil or telling a lie when in the case I presented he clearly is "doing" evil.

Is this the best retort you have to my example? That I can't stay on topic? Maybe I should start a new thread to make you happy. Or save us all time you could just answer it in a legit fashion, if you can, so we can move on the the original topic.

HypnoToad

8th May 2008, 02:24 PM

What "evil" in the plagues? Ending people's lives? God is the creator of all life and, therefore, has the authority to decide when it should end.

Any more questions about the actual topic (lying)?

nitecrawlur

8th May 2008, 04:40 PM

What "evil" in the plagues? Ending people's lives? God is the creator of all life and, therefore, has the authority to decide when it should end.

This was your original response to this topic, "Hebrew writers tend to ignore secondary causation and attribute things to God "doing" them when He merely "allowed" them. The examples you give are people who already chose to ignore the truth. God is only allowing them to believe what they previously decided they wanted to believe".

This would indicate that God ALLOWED them to go ahead with a decision that was already made by his proxy. A decision to lie. So God did not actually lie therefore he did not commit that evil task himself. As I understand it, God is not capable of committing evil so he does so through others.

This was my response to your post, "I guess, perhaps then, that God "allowed" a plague to kill the first born of Egyptians for enslaving the Isrealites? "Allowed" in such a way that a plague is an intelligent entity that is capable of seeking out and targeting children. Innocent children that nothing to do with the slavery other than the fact that their parents caused it. The children that had no control over what their parents did. Thats like saying the bullet I fired is capable of killing on children that happened to be in its path.

The plague was the bullet. The unintelligent force that was incapable of discriminating between old and young. The plague was Gods gun that he aimed at children and pulled the trigger. The plague sent was not capable of being "allowed" to do such a specific act since a virus cannot choose who it wants to infect. Just like HIV, it infects anyone it can when it gets a chance. It does not and cannot discriminate".

God would've had to control the plague himself, using it as a tool, to kill. Much in the same way one would use a knife to intelligently kill another person. That would indicate that your God is capable of evil. The plague is not evil because it had no choice in the matter (just like a knife) as opposed to God's lying proxies as stated in the original topic.

Any more questions about the actual topic (lying)?

Yes, tell me how my interpretation is wrong and the Christians interpretation is right. Even though all the denominations have a different view of what it means why is mine wrong?

I have a masters in theology so I think that I would have a better idea on what the Bible is saying better than someone who just knows what the Bible says simply from going to church 1-3 times a week.

Hentenza

8th May 2008, 09:59 PM

I have a masters in theology so I think that I would have a better idea on what the Bible is saying better than someone who just knows what the Bible says simply from going to church 1-3 times a week.

That is the problem with relying on oneself and letting pride take over. If you have a MTh then you should be versed on what Jesus teaches in the bible. You should also be versed in the difference between relying on our own mind versus what God teaches us through the HS and how to listen to the HS. What went wrong? How did you came to simply rely on yourself (and become a religion of one) and reject the clear teachings of Jesus?

nitecrawlur

8th May 2008, 10:46 PM

That is the problem with relying on oneself and letting pride take over

There is no pride here, just common sense. Here's what's going on: I simply make a suggestion and state an opinion on what I think the Bible is saying. Then Christians say I'm wrong without any support to back your/their theory. So you telling me what you think it says is no different or credible than what I am saying to you. The difference is I'm not saying you're wrong. It is you who has let your combined religious pride take over and blind your vision of common sense while at the same time closing your mind to others opinions.

If you have a MTh then you should be versed on what Jesus teaches in the bible

One of the reasons I took theology was to learn more about Christianity. To be honest I would love to believe that here is a merciful being that watches over us at all times and protects us. But in my learning of the Bible and many other religions as well is that nothing is consistant. It actually drove me further away. For example, I'm sure you've heard this: God heals all the time, but never amputees. Why? Why can he only heal things that we can't see like cancer, bacterial infections, virus' ect. but not something like an amputation? And not to mention, why is it when radiation kills cancer, Christians thank God and not science the doctors and nurses that did all the work? It doesn't make sense.

What Jesus teaches in the Bible and the God I am referring which is in the Old Testament are two completely different individuals. I will get to what Jesus teaches when I'm ready becuase he's not all glam and glitter either. Such as the Book of Thomas, he was no angel and there are many more examples which I will get to. There are many books that are not included in the Bible. When I was studying for theology I was told that these were banned due to "devine inspiration". But there are so many things in these banned books that they would contradict (even more so than what the Bible already does) what other books say, and also makes Jesus look less like a miracle worker that Christians think him to be.

How did you came to simply rely on yourself (and become a religion of one) and reject the clear teachings of Jesus?

I am an Atheist. If Atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color. Anyway the thing about religion is that when one person sees, hears, or comes in some kind of contact, emotion or physical, with a supernatural being that doesn't match or fit the description of an existing religion, he/she is called crazy. But when its a great number of people that have this experience it's called religion. I think you know what I'm getting at here and you can see the difference between Atheism and religion.

Secondly, I don't reject all the teachings of Jesus. I am a good and moral. I don't harm anyone when I don't have to. I don't however believe that he was God incarnated as a man to sacrifice himself to pay for the sins of the make-believe people Adam and Eve committed that for some reason we are all guilty for. I mean seriously, they didn't even kill something, they ate fruit and yet we are guilty for their accident? Thats like your parents jay-walking you going to jail for it with them. That is where common sense leaves the Bible, "In the beginning..." at least in my opinion.

Hentenza

8th May 2008, 11:03 PM

[quote=nitecrawlur;46855314]There is no pride here, just common sense. Here's what's going on: I simply make a suggestion and state an opinion on what I think the Bible is saying. Then Christians say I'm wrong without any support to back your/their theory. So you telling me what you think it says is no different or credible than what I am saying to you. The difference is I'm not saying you're wrong. It is you who has let your combined religious pride take over and blind your vision of common sense while at the same time closing your mind to others opinions.

Are you sure there is no back up or just proof that you are just not ready to accept?
I am not here arguing that you are right or wrong. That is for you to decide. I am still trying to figure out what your real motivation is by posting in a Christian website and then choosing the Conservative Forum as the forum to post. Are you here to honestly learn or just to spread "your" knowledge?

What Jesus teaches in the Bible and the God I am referring which is in the Old Testament are two completely different individuals. I will get to what Jesus teaches when I'm ready becuase he's not all glam and glitter either. Such as the Book of Thomas, he was no angel and there are many more examples which I will get to. There are many books that are not included in the Bible. When I was studying for theology I was told that these were banned due to "devine inspiration". But there are so many things in these banned books that they would contradict (even more so than what the Bible already does) what other books say, and also makes Jesus look less like a miracle worker that Christians think him to be.

And that is a perfect example of your misunderstanding of the scriptures. I am not surprised that you would cite gnostic media as support for your view. After all, "personal knowledge" was heavily advocated by gnostics.

I am an Atheist. If Atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color. Anyway the thing about religion is that when one person sees, hears, or comes in some kind of contact, emotion or physical, with a supernatural being that doesn't match or fit the description of an existing religion, he/she is called crazy. But when its a great number of people that have this experience it's called religion. I think you know what I'm getting at here and you can see the difference between Atheism and religion.

An atheist is someone that only believes in himself/herself as sufficient. No salt added. An atheist is no different than someone that believes in a religion. Both have a belief system.

Secondly, I don't reject all the teachings of Jesus. I am a good and moral. I don't harm anyone when I don't have to. I don't however believe that he was God incarnated as a man to sacrifice himself to pay for the sins of the make-believe people Adam and Eve committed that for some reason we are all guilty for. I mean seriously, they didn't even kill something, they ate fruit and yet we are guilty for their accident? Thats like your parents jay-walking you going to jail for it with them. That is where common sense leaves the Bible, "In the beginning..." at least in my opinion.

Just like your avatar suggests. Apply it.;)

nitecrawlur

8th May 2008, 11:36 PM

Are you sure there is no back up or just proof that you are just not ready to accept?
I am not here arguing that you are right or wrong. That is for you to decide. I am still trying to figure out what your real motivation is by posting in a Christian website and then choosing the Conservative Forum as the forum to post. Are you here to honestly learn or just to spread "your" knowledge

Conservatives spend alot of time reading scripture so I believe that a conservative Christian would have a better understand than say a "leisure believer". That is why I chose this forum.

Yes, believe it or not it's like I have stated before. If there is a universal concurrence on the translation of scripture I would accept it and admit to being wrong. At the same time I would believe in God if the evidence supported it.

I am here to learn amoung other things. I think that in Christian families (all religions really not just Christianity so don't think I'm picking on Christianity), the children are forced into their parents religion. They are labelled with it before they are capable of understanding it. Yet I don't see any Republicans labelling their children as Repulicans and same with other political parties because the children are too young to understand what it means to be a part of that political party. So why religion?

And that is a perfect example of your misunderstanding of the scriptures. I am not surprised that you would cite gnostic media as support for your view. After all, "personal knowledge" was heavily advocated by gnostics

You just stated that you're not arguing if I'm right or wrong yet you say here that I'm misunderstanding. That means that you are saying my understanding is wrong. Prove it. What you think I claim as knowledge is merely an opinion. I haven't said that the Bible's translation is what I say it is. It actually seems to be the other way around.

An atheist is someone that only believes in himself/herself as sufficient. No salt added. An atheist is no different than someone that believes in a religion. Both have a belief system

Atheists don't believe in a supernatural mega-daddy that talks to, reveals himself to, or has a relationship with him/her. Yes everyone has a belief system but Atheists don't hear or see invisable beings. If they did, they would be called crazy. So why aren't religious people seen the same way?

HypnoToad

9th May 2008, 12:27 AM

Yes, tell me how my interpretation is wrong and the Christians interpretation is right. Even though all the denominations have a different view of what it means why is mine wrong?
You act as though you demand "proof" of what Scripture says about God. No one can "prove" it to you, that's between you and God.

What I've given you, is a plausible explanation. You're on your own to decide what you want to be "right".

Then Christians say I'm wrong without any support to back your/their theory
Well, only the support of people who have PhD's in theology, like Walter Kaiser, for example.

nitecrawlur

9th May 2008, 12:40 AM

You act as though you demand "proof" of what Scripture says about God. No one can "prove" it to you, that's between you and God.

That's exactly my point. No one can prove it so why am I constantly told that I'm wrong in my opinion? Even if you say that I misinterpreted it, you're saying that my interpretation is wrong.

Well, only the support of people who have PhD's in theology, like Walter Kaiser, for example.

Ya know, that's kind of funny because I could argue that people that have PhD's in a field of science are my support but you probably wouldn't accept that as support. The difference between the two is that the scientists have physical evidence to support their theories which makes it more plausible and far more likely.

HypnoToad

9th May 2008, 12:43 AM

Scientific evidence that God lies? Yeah, I'm sure they've done experiments on that.

NewGuy101

9th May 2008, 01:42 AM

That's exactly my point. No one can prove it so why am I constantly told that I'm wrong in my opinion? Even if you say that I misinterpreted it, you're saying that my interpretation is wrong.

Ya know, that's kind of funny because I could argue that people that have PhD's in a field of science are my support but you probably wouldn't accept that as support. The difference between the two is that the scientists have physical evidence to support their theories which makes it more plausible and far more likely.
No, that just means that they are discussing to seperate fields. One the natural the other the super natural.

BTW I'm still waiting your response to my PM.

Secondly, God doesn't lie, because he tells us he doesn't lie. Our source of knowledge is scripture just like how yours is sense experience we both assume its reliable. Trying to prove that God doesn't lie with the natural sciences is like trying to prove ethics with the natural sciences.

nitecrawlur

9th May 2008, 10:25 AM

BTW I'm still waiting your response to my PM.

I'm pretty sure I did, at least I hope it actually got sent cause I wrote enough to be considered a novel. I wouldn't like to re-write it.

...prove ethics with the natural sciences

Actually, ethics can be proven with natural sciences. One example is how humans give without expectations of anything in return. Like, when you give money to save a kid over in the middle east. You know you're not going to get anything in return, at least nothing in material form. You may have your own sense of satisfaction but that's most likely going to be all you'll get. But that can be traced back up to tens of thousands of years. The whole idea of "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine". The difference is today it's a mental "misfiring" which still gives you the erge to do an act of kindness. Another example is sexual lust. Lets say you were married and your spouse was incapable of having children. Now, the point of sexual lust in nature is for procreation. Even though you and your spouse are aware children are highly unlikely with sex between the two of you, you're still going to have lust for each other. I know this has nothing to do with morals, but that should help put into perspective the "misfiring" I'm talking about. And one more final example that is not in humans is a certain type of bird that, when it leaves its nest, another "pirate" bird comes to its nest, kicks out the original birds egg, and replaces it with its own even though they are two different species of birds. The original bird will still raise that "donar" egg as if it were its own. Experiments have shown that the original bird must be aware of the new egg being different because it treats the new egg differently than what it would if it were its own. Again, another "misfiring" but still moral tendancies. So as you can see, natural science is capable of tracing morality to natural and not supernatural roots. This is one reason I believe that ethics are not absolute.

I will try resending my response to your PM.

nitecrawlur

9th May 2008, 10:37 AM

Hypnotoad

Scientific evidence that God lies? Yeah, I'm sure they've done experiments on that.

Hahaha! No, but that would be nice. I wasn't referring to evidence that God lies I was referring to other things in the Bible being proven wrong. But when lying is suspected it's just like in court. God and His word are on trial, and we have to decide if we buy it or not. It comes down to your belief. I read the Bible and see that it continually contradicts itself and you read it and see something else.

NewGuy101,

I tried resending the message but it said your PM box is full and you need to clear some messages out. It didn't say that when I sent it the first time, probly because the software on this site is different now. Let me know when you're ready to recieve my message.

HypnoToad

9th May 2008, 11:34 AM

Hahaha! No, but that would be nice. I wasn't referring to evidence that God lies I was referring to other things in the Bible being proven wrong. But when lying is suspected it's just like in court. God and His word are on trial, and we have to decide if we buy it or not. It comes down to your belief. I read the Bible and see that it continually contradicts itself and you read it and see something else.

So, that's it? You're debating that God lies, and your evidence is just "that's how you see it"? That doesn't exactly make your case.

nitecrawlur

9th May 2008, 12:03 PM

So, that's it? You're debating that God lies, and your evidence is just "that's how you see it"? That doesn't exactly make your case.

Yeah, I know. But a good number of Christians share your closed mindedness. You will come up with any excuse, no matter how rediculous, to cover your religious views. You will and do change your arguement to fit your beliefs just as long as you make yourself seem like you're not wrong.

For example, it's obvious that God is deceptive in the Bible. But it takes a special kind of closed minded person to convince himself/herself and others that there is more to God's word than what is written. As if there is some hidden message behind its absurdities. Of course, in order to be considered "the Good Book" that would HAVE TO BE the case. Because if you just took the Bible for what it is, it would be nothing more than myths. Myths of brutality and injustice (injustice in my opinion). So in order to make them just and non-brutal you would have to see it in an illogical way.

HypnoToad

9th May 2008, 12:21 PM

You haven't yet shown that the Hebrew writers ignoring secondary causation is an "illogical" explanation.

nitecrawlur

9th May 2008, 06:24 PM

You haven't yet shown that the Hebrew writers ignoring secondary causation is an "illogical" explanation.

Why should I? I'm not the one who is accusing others of misreading, misunderstanding, or misinterpreting its meaning. I am expressing what I think it means. It is you and your religion who says I am the one who is wrong.

Aside from that, it was you who said that the writers didn't take into consideration secondary causes. So why shouldn't it be you who supplies proof for your claim? You seemed pretty confident in your remark about it so there must be some reason why you think that, right?

HypnoToad

10th May 2008, 03:00 AM

Why should you? Um, that's how debates work. You're the one who started this claim that God lies. The burden of proof is on you.

You want proof of what I said? Fine.

On 1 Kings 22, for example:
Such a charge [of accusing God of lying] is possible only if one forgets that many biblical writers dismiss secondary causes and attribute all that happens directly to God, since He is over all things. Therefore, statements expressed in the imperative form of the verb often represent only what is permitted to happen.

...

God can be described as deceiving Ahab only because the biblical writer does not discriminate between what someone does and what he permits. ... We can say that God overrules the full tendencies of preexisting evil so that the evil promotes God's eternal plan, contrary to its own tendencies and goals.

Because Ahab had abandoned the Lord his God and hardened his own heart, God allowed his ruin by the very instrument Ahab had sought to prostitute for his own purposes, namely, prophecy. God used the false prophets that Ahab was so enamored with as His instruments of judgement.
Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Ph.D; Hard Sayings of the Bible, p.230

It's also ridiculous to say God is trying to deceive Ahab here. The verses in question are part of a vision that God's prophet Micaiah is instructed to tell Ahab. Did you get that? God told His prophet to TELL AHAB that the false prophets are lying to him and only saying what he wants to hear. Kinda hard for God to be deceiving Ahab while directly telling him that he's being lied to.

nitecrawlur

10th May 2008, 11:58 AM

Why should you? Um, that's how debates work. You're the one who started this claim that God lies. The burden of proof is on you.

You want proof of what I said? Fine.

On 1 Kings 22, for example:

Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Ph.D; Hard Sayings of the Bible, p.230

It's also ridiculous to say God is trying to deceive Ahab here. The verses in question are part of a vision that God's prophet Micaiah is instructed to tell Ahab. Did you get that? God told His prophet to TELL AHAB that the false prophets are lying to him and only saying what he wants to hear. Kinda hard for God to be deceiving Ahab while directly telling him that he's being lied to.

Wow, that's very good. But what about all the other passages I cited from. You have provided some one elses theory to one account. It's unfair to apply this theory to all instances in which God is described as being deceptive since this one (your "proof") specifically indentifies one certain passage from the Bible.

Again, I will list these: Jeremiah 4:10 "Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people" Jeremiah 20:7 "O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived". What secondary cause am I misinterpreting with here?

HypnoToad

10th May 2008, 01:44 PM

nitecrawlur

10th May 2008, 10:32 PM

Jeremiah 20:7 - this is the prophet's mistake, not God. Jeremiah mistakenly thought that God's promise to be with him meant that nothing bad would ever happen to him. And the word translated as "deceived" also means "persuaded" or "induced". Jeremiah was upset that God "persuaded" him to serve Him and didn't keep bad things from happening to him (which God never promised).

OK, but I'm pretty sure you mentioned that the writers didn't anticipate secondary causes. The word "persuade" is used multiple times in the Bible. So if the writers didn't anticipate secondary causes, why not just use the word that was intended? Even using "entice" is a completely different meaning than "deceive" but similar to "persuade" in the Bible.

That being said, since you think there aren't secondary causes, anytime the word "deceive" is used, than that would actually mean "persuade". So then in those cases no one would be lying unless the word lie was specified. If that were true then all instances that some one was thought to have lied in the bible was actually persuading which would probably cut the number of lies in the Bible in half becuase they would, again, simply be trying to persuade some one of something.

FaultySurplus

10th May 2008, 11:24 PM

nitecrawlur

11th May 2008, 12:20 AM

Actually, Hypno is right. The word translated as 'deceived' in Jeremiah 20:7 is better understood as pursuaded or enticed. In the first chapter,you can read the account of Jeremiah's recruitment. There was no deception there but he certainly was enticed.

One thing to keep in mind when reading either Jeremiah or Lamentations is that Jeremiah was an prolific whiner and he did a lot of it.

Basically, the point is this: "deceived" has an entirely different definition than "entice" or "persuade" even in the time span in which the Bible was written. Yet, both "persuade" and "entice" are used frequently for throughout the Bible in context that fits their definition. So my question is why would the word "deceive" be used instead of the word that would fit the context which was intended, since both words existed (persuade, entice). In order for God to not be a liar, "deceived" WOULD HAVE TO BE translated in that manner. Christianity WOULD HAVE TO change the definition of "deceived" in order to justify their claims to a God that cannot lie. Otherwise it would contradict his inability to lie. This seems like a Christian "cover" so that your God can still be what He says He is.

nitecrawlur

11th May 2008, 12:21 AM

Hentenza

11th May 2008, 11:16 AM

The meaning of the word (whether meaning to deceive or to persuade) in Jeremiah 20:7 is unimportant since it is Jeremiah's plea. Jeremiah 20 speaks of what Jeremiah is going through, like being mocked and beaten, like being thrown in prison for prophesy regarding the doom that was to befallen Pashhur, etc.
Jeremiah is in an hour of temptation. A moment of unbelieving that he followed what God has spoken to him. I find it interesting that even in that hour of temptation, Jeremiah still loves God and knows that God is with him like a "mighty warrior" (verse 11). We see what Jeremiah really wants God to do in verse 12. And in verse 13 Jeremiah praises and sings to the Lord. Would you praise and sing to a God that you knew for a fact had deceived you and tricked you? Would you follow such a God? Of course not. Did Jeremiah loose his faith in God? Did Jeremiah stop following God's command to prophesy? Of course not.
The premise of the OP is self defeating.

HypnoToad

11th May 2008, 12:25 PM

OK, but I'm pretty sure you mentioned that the writers didn't anticipate secondary causes.
No, what I said was that they often ignored secondary causes. I don't know what "anticipation" has to do with it.

The word "persuade" is used multiple times in the Bible. So if the writers didn't anticipate secondary causes, why not just use the word that was intended? Even using "entice" is a completely different meaning than "deceive" but similar to "persuade" in the Bible.
What do you mean? We're talking about the English translation, not the word the original Hebrew writer used. And again, I have no idea what "anticipation" has to do with anything here.

That being said, since you think there aren't secondary causes, anytime the word "deceive" is used, than that would actually mean "persuade".
No, I never said there aren't secondary causes. I said the Hebrew writers often ignored it.

Further, there's no reason that it suggests EVERY instance of "deceive" should be "persuade". You have to consider context in translation. And you also have to consider (which you sound as if you had no idea of this) that there's different Hebrew words that are sometimes translated into one English word. Jeremiah is a perfect example. The Hebrew for "deceived" in Jer.4 (nasha) is completely different than the Hebrew word for "deceived" in Jer.20. (pathah).

Basically, the point is this: "deceived" has an entirely different definition than "entice" or "persuade" even in the time span in which the Bible was written.
Again, it seems like you're confusing the original Hebrew with an English translation and blaming any confusion on the original Scripture.

nitecrawlur

11th May 2008, 04:38 PM

Hypnotoad,
Further, there's no reason that it suggests EVERY instance of "deceive" should be "persuade". You have to consider context in translation. And you also have to consider (which you sound as if you had no idea of this) that there's different Hebrew words that are sometimes translated into one English word. Jeremiah is a perfect example. The Hebrew for "deceived" in Jer.4 (nasha) is completely different than the Hebrew word for "deceived" in Jer.20. (pathah).

"nasha" isn't in either of my Hebrew vocabulary sources.

"pathah" is translated as "allude, entice, and/or persuade". So lets assume that is what this translation is saying, that God enticed Jeremiah. I'm going to try to do a comparison.

If you have ever tried to buy a used car, the salesman will not directly tell you if there is something wrong. He/she will describe the vehicle in such a way that you will draw your own conclusions on the vehicles health. Even if there is something wrong the sales person will avoid any conversation that would lead to him having to jeopardize the sale.

So the sales person is preying on the buyers gullibiltiy, ignorance, and trust. He is a predator. Does whatever he has to, to ensure his personal success.

Now, if you ended up buying this car, would you be willing to go back and buy another from this same sales person? Probably not. If a friend of yours had this experience with that salesperson, would you go to that dealer to buy a car? Most likely not.

So, knowing that God preyed on Jeremiahs ingorance, gullibility, and trust to ensure His own will, why and how could you trust a God like that. How does it not occur that everything you know (or think you know) about what God says, is merely a persuasive trick to ensure his will? How do you know if He isn't gaining your faith under false intensions?

The point your are raising here is actually far worse than God simply telling a lie. So even if I am wrong, and based on what you're saying, I probably am as far as definitions, you must be asking yourself "what sense is in me trusting a God who is only concerned with His personal gain and not my well being"?

Hentenza,
Jeremiah is in an hour of temptation. A moment of unbelieving that he followed what God has spoken to him. I find it interesting that even in that hour of temptation, Jeremiah still loves God and knows that God is with him like a "mighty warrior" (verse 11). We see what Jeremiah really wants God to do in verse 12. And in verse 13 Jeremiah praises and sings to the Lord. Would you praise and sing to a God that you knew for a fact had deceived you and tricked you? Would you follow such a God? Of course not. Did Jeremiah loose his faith in God? Did Jeremiah stop following God's command to prophesy? Of course not.

God did trick him. God knew, since he is omniscient, that Jeremiah would misunderstand what God meant. But since God is only concerned with His will, He let Jeremiah misinterpret His words.

I seems that your God selfish. And as I stated before, I am probably wrong with the definitions and I have most likely misunderstood its context. But what you and Hypnotoad has revealed is that your God is far worse than just a liar. He is a selfish, manipulative, tricky, and malevolent creature. Ironically,that almost perfectly matches the description of a car sales person, or even worse, a pirate.

If you believe that God has a plan, are you aware of what it is? If your not aware of what it is, than based on incidences such as this, how can you be sure that God is a good God and not just trying to sell Himself as a good, moral character. How can you be sure that He doesn't have a singular intention of carrying out his "plan" with complete disregard to what happens to humans? A plan in which no one is within any type of certainty that this plan is in good nature.

Hentenza

11th May 2008, 05:05 PM

[quote=nitecrawlur;46892508]

Hentenza,

God did trick him. God knew, since he is omniscient, that Jeremiah would misunderstand what God meant. But since God is only concerned with His will, He let Jeremiah misinterpret His words.

No, he let Jeremiah exercise his own will. Without tribulation there is no growth. Even is secular life most life learning is done through experience and trial and error.

I seems that your God selfish. And as I stated before, I am probably wrong with the definitions and I have most likely misunderstood its context. But what you and Hypnotoad has revealed is that your God is far worse than just a liar. He is a selfish, manipulative, tricky, and malevolent creature. Ironically,that almost perfectly matches the description of a car sales person, or even worse, a pirate.

That could not be further from the truth. Look at parenthood, for example. Are parents merely selfish because they make their kids do things that they don't want to do? Are parents manipulative because they make their kids do their homework? Are parent tricky because they make their kids mow the lawn or wash the car?

If you believe that God has a plan, are you aware of what it is? If your not aware of what it is, than based on incidences such as this, how can you be sure that God is a good God and not just trying to sell Himself as a good, moral character. How can you be sure that He doesn't have a singular intention of carrying out his "plan" with complete disregard to what happens to humans? A plan in which no one is within any type of certainty that this plan is in good nature.

No, I don't fully know what God's plan is. No one does. I have taken the totality of scripture in consideration and gone with the preponderance of the evidence that God is in fact a merciful God. One that loves his creation so much that actually gave it the will that can either accept Him or reject Him. This doesn't sound like the God that you are describing.

nitecrawlur

11th May 2008, 05:35 PM

No, he let Jeremiah exercise his own will. Without tribulation there is no growth. Even is secular life most life learning is done through experience and trial and error.

If you agree that God is omniscient, than could you please help me understand how, if everything is already decided since God knows it's going to happen, anyone has free will? There is no room for free will in fate.

Are parents merely selfish because they make their kids do things that they don't want to do?

That is question is relative. If you are referring to a parent who forces sex on their child(-ren) then yes.

Are parents manipulative because they make their kids do their homework?

No. Unless the child doing his/her homework somehow benefits the parent(s) their own personal selfish intention. But this is also different than Jeremiahs situation since if the parent is MAKING the child do homework, there is no free will, which you are claiming Jeremiah had. You are claiming that God didn't MAKE Jeremiah think incorrectly, because then he would've had to have lied to accomplish that.

Are parent tricky because they make their kids mow the lawn or wash the car?

No, parents are forceful if they MAKE their kids do something. In order to be tricky or manipulative you must not be forecful and make the victim THINK they are choosing for themselves.

No, I don't fully know what God's plan is. No one does. I have taken the totality of scripture in consideration and gone with the preponderance of the evidence that God is in fact a merciful God

The totality of scripture? What about the scriptures that were banned from the Bible? Assuming that those that were banned were done so due to devine inspiration what would God not want included in His word and why? What was God trying to hide? Perhaps incriminating texts. Then again, a car mfr. woudn't put possible defects of a vehicle in its manual, would it? Because, then nobody would buy it. Maybe that's why Christianity is so successful. They aren't being told the whole truth. Just like in Jeremiahs situation.

Hentenza

11th May 2008, 06:25 PM

[quote=nitecrawlur;46893239]If you agree that God is omniscient, than could you please help me understand how, if everything is already decided since God knows it's going to happen, anyone has free will? There is no room for free will in fate.

The problem with this thinking is that free will does not stop just because God knows what is going to happen. I know that if I put a bowl of ice cream and a bowl of dog poop in front of my 6 year old grandaughter, she will choose the ice cream. Did I negated her free will? Of course not. For God to know what a person will choose does not mean that the person has no freedom to make the choice. It simply means that God knows what the person will choose.
if God knows all things and knows what we are going to choose, then by definition, we are still making the choice; after all, you say that God knows what "we are going to choose." If we are going to "choose" something, then we really are making the choice, otherwise it wouldn't be logical to assert that God knows what we are going to choose. Choice implies the ability to decide between different options. Again, by definition if God is knowing what we are going to choose, then He knows what we are going to choose between options, otherwise we are not choosing anything and the statement is illogical.
Knowing what a person will do does not force them or limit them to doing what is known. Your statement that if God knows what we are going to do then we don't have "real" free will is logically stating that God's foreknowledge of an event somehow limits the event and the choice of the individual. Your statement implies that there is an action by God upon a person that negates His freedom to choose. Can you establish some logical connection between what God knows will happen and the mind of the one who makes a choice so that the mind of the person making the choice no longer is making a choice?

The totality of scripture? What about the scriptures that were banned from the Bible? Assuming that those that were banned were done so due to devine inspiration what would God not want included in His word and why? What was God trying to hide? Perhaps incriminating texts. Then again, a car mfr. woudn't put possible defects of a vehicle in its manual, would it? Because, then nobody would buy it. Maybe that's why Christianity is so successful. They aren't being told the whole truth. Just like in Jeremiahs situation.No God given scripture was banned from the bible. You have no evidence of this but only your opinion. The gnostic books are not part of the cannon because they teach contrary to Jesus.
BTW- Who are they? (I highlighted your statement).

HypnoToad

11th May 2008, 07:04 PM

God did trick him. God knew, since he is omniscient, that Jeremiah would misunderstand what God meant. But since God is only concerned with His will, He let Jeremiah misinterpret His words.
Lol, ok. Jeremiah made the mistake, didn't think about what God actually said, and you want to blame God.

Free will is irrelevant to this debate.

nitecrawlur

11th May 2008, 07:29 PM

The problem with this thinking is that free will does not stop just because God knows what is going to happen. I know that if I put a bowl of ice cream and a bowl of dog poop in front of my 6 year old grandaughter, she will choose the ice cream. Did I negated her free will? Of course not

Well, you seem like your morals, for the most part, fit my own. By that I mean if I presented my son with those options and for some off the wall reason he did choose the bowl of poop, I would not allow him to take it for obvious reasons. So really there is no choice at all here because what I would be saying is, which one do you want(poop), but this is all you can have (the ice cream). So you don't KNOW he would take ice cream, you assume. You only allow the ice cream which makes the other option just an illusion since the poop would not be allowed.

So, God knows what WILL happen, not what MIGHT happen. In your grandaughters case, you know what might happen and assume she'll make the better choice. That's why there was a choice presented by you. But since God knows what WILL happen, there is ulitmately no choice since it was decided by Gods omniscience.

No God given scripture was banned from the bible. You have no evidence of this but only your opinion. The gnostic books are not part of the cannon because they teach contrary to Jesus.

You're 100% correct. It is only a theory. That's why I only asked questions that allude to possible answers. I said "assume" and stated "maybe" but never "is" or "because" (except in my car manual metaphor) in my theories. My personal opinion based on my studies.

Now it seems that you are 100% certain that all scriptures in the Bible are "God given". What evidence do you have to support that?

BTW- Who are they? (I highlighted your statement).

Sorry, you're right I should've specified. "They" would be Christians. And just so there is no confusion I will restate my sentence.

They may not be exposed to the whole truth. Which would indicate a manipulative God. Just as God manipulated and took advantage of Jeremiah. You are forced to draw your own conclusions because God is not providing all the information necessary to make and educated guess. You make a guess on faith without evidence. Jeremiah misunderstood what God said because God failed to provide him the information on His true intension.

You can't prove that scripture in the Bible is God given just like I nor you can provide evidence to support our theories on why certain scriptures were banned.

You can't provide evidence that the Bible is God given scripture. You accept it as God given since some one a long time ago decided what will and will not be considered God given for you. Then you are taught that it IS God given scripture and not to question it because it's God's word. To question God's word is blasphemy, the unforgivable sin.

HypnoToad

11th May 2008, 07:40 PM

Lol, no, the "unforgivable sin" is not "questioning God's word". Didn't you say you have a masters in theology? How much of your course work was actually on Christianity?

nitecrawlur

11th May 2008, 07:48 PM

Lol, no, the "unforgivable sin" is not "questioning God's word". Didn't you say you have a masters in theology? How much of your course work was actually on Christianity?

I guess blasphemy is subjective too? Blasphemy is any act or utterance in which would insult God. Do think that questioning His word, which is what your religion is based on, is not blasphemy?

HypnoToad

11th May 2008, 08:00 PM

Show me Scripture that says all blasphemy is unforgivable.

nitecrawlur

11th May 2008, 08:24 PM

Show me Scripture that says all blasphemy is unforgivable.

Mark 3:29

"But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin."

HypnoToad

11th May 2008, 08:30 PM

I asked for mention of "all" blasphemy, not just blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Try again.

nitecrawlur

11th May 2008, 09:02 PM

I asked for mention of "all" blasphemy, not just blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Try again.

Hahaha! Yes you did indeed ask for "all" blasphemy. So let's think it through. Now being Atheist I clearly hold a different perspective than you on this but I'm going to ask anyway.

Jesus Christ is God incarnated as a human. So they are actually the same being in a different form. So you would I assume that the HS is also God in a different form. So any insult or negative word or action to the HS would be directed to being an insult to God, Jesus and anything associated.

So to question the Word of God is to discredit it. When authority issues truth and it is questioned, it is also an insult. To insult the Word of God is to insult the balance of the Trinity since they are all the same being is different forms.

The Bible says nothing about "all" blasphemy. It actually says that all blasphemies will be forgiven, even torwards Jesus but not the HS. How is that not a contradiction? Thats like saying "it's ok to insult Jim when he is dead but not when he is alive". Jim is still Jim in either case but in different states, dead or alive. At what boundry does God consider insulting Him or one of His forms inappropriate?

BTW- Why are you getting me off topic? My debate was with Hentenze regarding God being malevolent, selfish, and manipulative. Why are you redirecting this conversation to another issue? Don't get me wrong, I thoroughly enjoy pointing out inconsistancies, but you accused me of going off topic which is what your are attempting to do here.

HypnoToad

11th May 2008, 09:12 PM

Hentenza

11th May 2008, 09:12 PM

[quote=nitecrawlur;46895149]Well, you seem like your morals, for the most part, fit my own. By that I mean if I presented my son with those options and for some off the wall reason he did choose the bowl of poop, I would not allow him to take it for obvious reasons. So really there is no choice at all here because what I would be saying is, which one do you want(poop), but this is all you can have (the ice cream). So you don't KNOW he would take ice cream, you assume. You only allow the ice cream which makes the other option just an illusion since the poop would not be allowed.

Nitecrawlur, you did not address any of my post but merely deflected it. I am not assuming anything. I am merely asking you. You know what option your son will take, so are you infringing in his free will? Are you directly influencing his mind and therefore, his free will?
What logical influence does God knowing our choice have to do with free will? Does God directly influence our choice?

So, God knows what WILL happen, not what MIGHT happen. In your grandaughters case, you know what might happen and assume she'll make the better choice. That's why there was a choice presented by you. But since God knows what WILL happen, there is ultimately no choice since it was decided by Gods omniscience.

God did not decide what my granddaughter will choose. You assume that just because God knows what will happen that somehow He will influence what we will choose. Can you logically prove a connection between God knowing and then influencing our choice and what we will choose and our ability to choose?

You're 100% correct. It is only a theory. That's why I only asked questions that allude to possible answers. I said "assume" and stated "maybe" but never "is" or "because" (except in my car manual metaphor) in my theories. My personal opinion based on my studies.

Now it seems that you are 100% certain that all scriptures in the Bible are "God given". What evidence do you have to support that?

Yes it is your theory. The scripture tells us that it is sufficient for correction and teaching. John also tells us that the Word became man. Ever read John 1.

Sorry, you're right I should've specified. "They" would be Christians. And just so there is no confusion I will restate my sentence.

They may not be exposed to the whole truth. Which would indicate a manipulative God. Just as God manipulated and took advantage of Jeremiah. You are forced to draw your own conclusions because God is not providing all the information necessary to make and educated guess. You make a guess on faith without evidence. Jeremiah misunderstood what God said because God failed to provide him the information on His true intension.
Actually, Jeremiah was very founded in his faith. We are merely humans with a limited capacity. Jeremiah never lost his faith nor did he blame God for his demise. Jeremiah merely had a moment of doubt which is to be expected with our limited understanding.

You can't prove that scripture in the Bible is God given just like I nor you can provide evidence to support our theories on why certain scriptures were banned.

Heck, you can't even prove that you are an atheist.:confused:

You can't provide evidence that the Bible is God given scripture. You accept it as God given since some one a long time ago decided what will and will not be considered God given for you. Then you are taught that it IS God given scripture and not to question it because it's God's word. To question God's word is blasphemy, the unforgivable sin.

Actually, I can prove it. Are you willing to listen to the evidence with an open mind?

nitecrawlur

11th May 2008, 09:53 PM

Nitecrawlur, you did not address any of my post but merely deflected it. I am not assuming anything. I am merely asking you. You know what option your son will take, so are you infringing in his free will? Are you directly influencing his mind and therefore, his free will?
What logical influence does God knowing our choice have to do with free will? Does God directly influence our choice?

With my son or your grandaughter, we don't KNOW what they would choose. We can only make educated guesses based on what we think they would prefer. The only thing that is guarenteed is that nothing is guarenteed. So to KNOW something will happen is impossible. Just because you say something will happen and then it does, doesn't mean you knew it would. You only made an educated guess based on your current knowledge and the conditions happened to favor your predictions. So our situations the ice cream is different and therefore inapplicable to Gods ability (omniscience).

The fact that God knows what WILL happen does not influence our decision. I'm sorry if thats the way I am describing what I mean, but that would be incorrect. I'll try to express my theory better.

I think there are two scenerios here. The first being a God that is omnicient. If he knows what will happen, that would indicate that fate exists. If fate exists then there would be no need for God to interfere with Human affairs since fate (not to be confused with God) has already decided everything for us. So if fate decided for us, there would be no need for God to influence us. I think that is the best way I can describe it.

The second scenerio is if fate did not exist. At that point, God would be required to interfere with our affairs in order to fullfil his plan. In this situation we do have free will in which God MUST influence our decisions. If fate doesn't exist, then God could not be omniscient since He wouldn't know what WILL happen. He would only know what MAY happen which would be the cause for him to be required to interfere. The Bible seems to allude to this theory over the first since God is so interactive througout it.

Heck, you can't even prove that you are an atheist

I'm uncertain as to where you were looking to go with this. It has nothing to do with proving or disproving scripture. Are you deflecting my question?

Actually, I can prove it. Are you willing to listen to the evidence with an open mind

I am willing to accept any logical explaination. For example, if you cite scripture to justify that it is God given that is not acceptable. That would be like using a word to describe itself. But, please I am intrigued.

nitecrawlur

11th May 2008, 09:59 PM

It's not an contradiction. While Jesus and the Holy Spirit are God, Jesus is not the Holy Spirit, nor is Jesus the Father. The Father is not Jesus, nor is He the Holy Spirit. That's why it's not inconsistent to forgive blasphemy against the Son, but not against the Holy Spirit, which also shows that not all blasphemy is unforgivable as you claim.

What you are telling me here is that they are all the same entity, and yet at the same time they are three seperate entities. That sounds like me saying "I am mysef, my son, and we share a soul but we are all the same individual but seperate as ourselves also". How can you claim that this is not a contradiction?

If you want to stay "on topic", you need to show that God has lied, which you have not yet done.

Hentenza and I have already come to an agreement. I misunderstood. We have since moved onto a topic in which I have mentioned to you. You are dragging me away from it.

Hentenza

11th May 2008, 10:52 PM

[quote=nitecrawlur;46897011]With my son or your grandaughter, we don't KNOW what they would choose. We can only make educated guesses based on what we think they would prefer. The only thing that is guarenteed is that nothing is guarenteed. So to KNOW something will happen is impossible. Just because you say something will happen and then it does, doesn't mean you knew it would. You only made an educated guess based on your current knowledge and the conditions happened to favor your predictions. So our situations the ice cream is different and therefore inapplicable to Gods ability (omniscience).

Actually, you hit the nail on the head. We can not know what your son or my granddaughter will choose but we are certain, beyond the preponderance of the evidence that they would choose the ice cream versus the bowl of poop. We are likely to influence their decision based on our own preferences. God, on the other hand, does not influence our decision, even though He is omniscient and knows what will happen. There is no evidence to suggest that God will influence our choice only because He knows what the outcome will be. Again, you have not shown a logical connection between what God knows and our individual decision to make a choice.

The fact that God knows what WILL happen does not influence our decision. I'm sorry if thats the way I am describing what I mean, but that would be incorrect. I'll try to express my theory better.

OK, thanks.:)

I think there are two scenerios here. The first being a God that is omnicient. If he knows what will happen, that would indicate that fate exists. If fate exists then there would be no need for God to interfere with Human affairs since fate (not to be confused with God) has already decided everything for us. So if fate decided for us, there would be no need for God to influence us. I think that is the best way I can describe it.

The second scenerio is if fate did not exist. At that point, God would be required to interfere with our affairs in order to fullfil his plan. In this situation we do have free will in which God MUST influence our decisions. If fate doesn't exist, then God could not be omniscient since He wouldn't know what WILL happen. He would only know what MAY happen which would be the cause for him to be required to interfere. The Bible seems to allude to this theory over the first since God is so interactive througout it.

Mmmm...... Fate is usually thought of as a predetermined course of events beyond human control. A typical response to a belief in fate is resignation. If we can’t change destiny, then why even try? Whatever happens, happens, and we can’t do anything about it. This is called “fatalism,” and it is not biblical.

Fatalism is a major premise of Islam, which demands total submission to the sovereignty of Allah. It is widely held in Hinduism, too, in fact, it is a fatalistic view of life that helps keep India’s caste system in place. Greek mythology told of the Moirai, or the Fates, three goddesses pictured as weavers of men’s lives. Their decisions could not be canceled or annulled, even by other gods. Again, fatalism is not a biblical concept.

There are then two premises to consider. Fate and destiny as it concerns our free will and fate and destiny as it concerns God's sovereignty. The Bible teaches that Man was created with the ability to make moral choices and that he is responsible for those choices. The Fall of Man was not a predetermined event in which Adam and Eve were hapless victims of a Puppet-Master God. On the contrary, Adam and his wife had the ability to choose obedience (with its attendant blessing) or disobedience (with its consequent curse). They knew what the result of their decision would be, and they were held accountable (Genesis 3).

This theme of being held accountable for our choices continues throughout Scripture. “He who sows wickedness reaps trouble” (Proverbs 22:8a). “All hard work brings a profit, but mere talk leads only to poverty” (Proverbs 14:23). “Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you” (Romans 13:3).

Most of the time, when the Bible speaks of destiny, it’s in reference to a destiny people have brought upon themselves: “Many live as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their destiny is destruction” (Philippians 3:18-19). “This is the fate of those who trust in themselves” (Psalm 49:13). “A man who commits adultery lacks judgment; whoever does so destroys himself” (Proverbs 6:32). “Each person was judged according to what he had done” (Revelation 20:13).

Scripture also teaches that we choose to have faith. The often repeated command in Scripture to believe implies that we do have a choice in the matter. “Be not faithless, but believing” (John 20:27; see also Acts 16:31; 19:4).

In Acts 9, Jesus appears to Saul of Tarsus with an interesting statement: “It is hard for you to kick against the goads” (verse 5). Jesus obviously had a plan for Saul, and Saul had been (painfully) resisting it. Exercising our freedom against God’s plan can be painful.

Later, Jesus tells Saul that a man named Ananias would come to visit and then Jesus tells Ananias (verses 11-12). Obviously, Jesus had a pre-arranged plan for Ananias as well. Now, Ananias didn’t want to visit Saul (verse 13-14). He could have been like Jonah and run the other way. If that had been his choice, God would have had a “fish” prepared to bring him back. Fortunately, Ananias obeyed (verse 17). Exercising our freedom to follow God’s plan brings a blessing.

The Bible teaches that God is in charge. At the same time, He has given us the freedom to obey or disobey Him, and there are some things that God does only in answer to prayer (James 4:2).;)

I'm uncertain as to where you were looking to go with this. It has nothing to do with proving or disproving scripture. Are you deflecting my question?

No, just a simple question. Can you prove that you are an atheist?

I am willing to accept any logical explaination. For example, if you cite scripture to justify that it is God given that is not acceptable. That would be like using a word to describe itself. But, please I am intrigued.
I think we need to get other things out of the way first before we begin to discuss evidence since evidence is only as good as how is received.

HypnoToad

11th May 2008, 10:58 PM

What you are telling me here is that they are all the same entity, and yet at the same time they are three seperate entities. That sounds like me saying "I am mysef, my son, and we share a soul but we are all the same individual but seperate as ourselves also". How can you claim that this is not a contradiction?

Hentenza and I have already come to an agreement. I misunderstood. We have since moved onto a topic in which I have mentioned to you. You are dragging me away from it.
No, they are not "different entities and the same entity". There is one God, but they are three distinct persons.

Please explain how a non-corporeal, omnipotent, eternal being must be limited to the same mode of existence as you are?

And derailing threads is not allowed, even by the OP. If you are done with the God lying notion, you should start a new thread for whatever your new topic is.

CherylRogers

11th May 2008, 11:07 PM

God doesn't lie. He is good and he is love. He is truth. He does, however, allow lies and deception to exist or we wouldn't have them. When he allows someone to be deceived, he must plan to ultimately use it for good. He must have a reason.
The lying spirit is an evil spirit. So is deception. They go against the truth that God represents.

Cheryl Rogers
Author, Fast Track to Victory, A Christian Guidebook -- a devotions book aimed at new and young believers
Webmaster, SongsfromtheWord.com - original Scripture songs in a traditional style suitable or children's choruses

nitecrawlur

11th May 2008, 11:30 PM

God, on the other hand, does not influence our decision, even though He is omniscient and knows what will happen

You say that fate is not Biblical. If God is omniscient and he knows that I am going to bed at midnight that is fate. I am going to bed at midnight. Maybe not because He caused it, but because He knows it. My immediate destiny is to go to bed at midnight. So it would be impossible for me to go to bed after that since God KNOWS when I'll go to bed. If God knows it then it cannot be wrong and it MUST turn out that way without option. So indirectly fate is Biblical.

OK, thanks.:)

Yeah, yeah, yeah.;)

Can you prove that you are an atheist?

I can provide evidence. It is up to you to decide if you believe I am.

I think we need to get other things out of the way first before we begin to discuss evidence since evidence is only as good as how is received

Well, it's like I said, I am open to any logicla explaination. For example, if you suggest I accept Jesus into my heart and ask Him myself, that would not be an option. Scripture that supports your theory is unacceptable.

What are you referring to when you say there are somet things we need get out of the way?

Hentenza

11th May 2008, 11:53 PM

[quote=nitecrawlur;46898503]You say that fate is not Biblical. If God is omniscient and he knows that I am going to bed at midnight that is fate. I am going to bed at midnight. Maybe not because He caused it, but because He knows it. My immediate destiny is to go to bed at midnight. So it would be impossible for me to go to bed after that since God KNOWS when I'll go to bed. If God knows it then it cannot be wrong and it MUST turn out that way without option. So indirectly fate is Biblical.

LOL!!! You did not address my post. Again.;)

I can provide evidence. It is up to you to decide if you believe I am.

You can't provide evidence that you are an atheist. Period.

What are you referring to when you say there are somet things we need get out of the way?

Evidence is only as good as the ears that hear it. You are not yet ready to hear the evidence with an open mind.

nitecrawlur

12th May 2008, 04:46 PM

You can't provide evidence that you are an atheist. Period.

Evidence is only as good as the ears that hear it. You are not yet ready to hear the evidence with an open mind.

Something tells me these two statements are connected. I haven't figured out exactly what you're attempting to lead me to. Would I be correct in assuming that you are attempting to set up an intellectual "trap" in which you ask questions to which I can only have one answer that you are willing to accept, so when I answer it that way you will be satisfied by thinking you have made a valid point? Then by me answering in such a way you attempt to pass those answers off as evidence as scripture being "God given"? Basically manuver my answers to prove your point?

Here's the thing. Evidence can be anything from words spoken to pictures and video. So I can provide evidence that I am an Atheist but that evidence is only as valid as the receiver allows it to be. So you would choose not to accept my word evidence that I am Atheist but you'll accept a book written 2000 years ago by people you've never spoken to as "Gods Word". Just like you said, evidence as good as the receiver allows it.

Hentenza

12th May 2008, 09:19 PM

Something tells me these two statements are connected. I haven't figured out exactly what you're attempting to lead me to. Would I be correct in assuming that you are attempting to set up an intellectual "trap" in which you ask questions to which I can only have one answer that you are willing to accept, so when I answer it that way you will be satisfied by thinking you have made a valid point? Then by me answering in such a way you attempt to pass those answers off as evidence as scripture being "God given"? Basically manuver my answers to prove your point?

Here's the thing. Evidence can be anything from words spoken to pictures and video. So I can provide evidence that I am an Atheist but that evidence is only as valid as the receiver allows it to be. So you would choose not to accept my word evidence that I am Atheist but you'll accept a book written 2000 years ago by people you've never spoken to as "Gods Word". Just like you said, evidence as good as the receiver allows it.

LOL!!!! No, the statements are not related. I am not dishonest.:):wave:

nitecrawlur

13th May 2008, 11:28 PM

OK, Hypnotoad has raised a valid point. We seemed to have gotten off track.

But I will try to entertain some of your questions before we get back on track

You can't provide evidence that you are an atheist. Period.

I can provide my word that I'm an Atheist. As well as providing written documentation that states and alludes to me being an Atheist. Also, I could other people testify that I am an Atheist. That is all evidence. I can't prove it but I can supply evidence.

God, on the other hand, does not influence our decision, even though He is omniscient and knows what will happen. There is no evidence to suggest that God will influence our choice only because He knows what the outcome will be. Again, you have not shown a logical connection between what God knows and our individual decision to make a choice

Well, I'm not really sure how to make my point perfectly clear. But this is my attempt.

If God is omniscient, and He does, indeed, KNOW what will happen, then there would be no need to interfere. However, Christians do claim to hear from God, see angels sent from God and confess to seeing miracles. Miracles are performed by God. So He does, according to Christians, interfere with our lives. Again, if He is omniscient, and KNOWS what will happen, then why interfere? Unless what He KNOWS will happen requires Him to interfere. But if He didn't interfere than what He KNOWS will happen would not happen if He didn't interfere. Then what we have here is a God who only is aware of what MAY happen and would require him to act to make what He wants happen, come true. Which would canel any definate knowledge and would make Him not omniscient. And if He is not omniscient, then He is, also, not omnipotent. I would consider this a connection between what God KNOWS and what actually happens when He interferes. Although it isn't a Biblical connection, I'm sure you get the point.

If you would like to respond to this please do so on the thread I started on this topic. Hypnotoad will have a heat attack if we get off topic in this thread. But I would like you to respond when you get a chance.

But, to get back on topic, when God told Jeremiah "...I will be with you...", God knew that Jeremiah would misunderstand what He ment by that, because He is omniscient. So, in order for God to make His plan work properly, He had to allow Jeremiah to proceed under that assumption, no matter what happened to Jeremiah. So God intentionally mislead Jeremiah to get what He wanted. That is melavolence. Complete disregard for the well being of others. He manipulated Jeremiah by taking advantage of Jeremiahs ignorance, and trust in Him.

HypnoToad

14th May 2008, 03:22 PM

But, to get back on topic, when God told Jeremiah "...I will be with you...", God knew that Jeremiah would misunderstand what He ment by that, because He is omniscient. So, in order for God to make His plan work properly, He had to allow Jeremiah to proceed under that assumption, no matter what happened to Jeremiah. So God intentionally mislead Jeremiah to get what He wanted. That is melavolence. Complete disregard for the well being of others. He manipulated Jeremiah by taking advantage of Jeremiahs ignorance, and trust in Him.
To give any sort of credence to this, you have to show how Jeremiah's obedience left him worse off overall, than if Jeremiah did not do as God instructed. How would Jeremiah's life been better? How would he have been a better person?

nitecrawlur

14th May 2008, 04:49 PM

To give any sort of credence to this, you have to show how Jeremiah's obedience left him worse off overall, than if Jeremiah did not do as God instructed. How would Jeremiah's life been better? How would he have been a better person?

I don't have to show anything. It is irrelavent if Jeremiah is better or worse after he did what God wanted. My point is that God used Jeremiah to get the results He wanted. If Jeremiah made out better after, great, if not, oh well. That seems to be Gods attitude. That is melavolence. The end product of Jeremiahs status is not what is important. I'm focusing on God and His disregard. I'm focusing on God preying on Jeremiahs trust, ingnorance and manipulating those charactaristics for His benefit.

Hentenza

14th May 2008, 08:07 PM

I can provide my word that I'm an Atheist. As well as providing written documentation that states and alludes to me being an Atheist. Also, I could other people testify that I am an Atheist. That is all evidence. I can't prove it but I can supply evidence.

What is your definition of an atheist?

PS, No cut and paste please.;)

nitecrawlur

14th May 2008, 08:39 PM

What is your definition of an atheist?

Atheist - an individual who recognizes there is, most likely, no higher power or intelligent designer in which to answer to

This is MY definition as it most accurately fits my own beliefs

Hentenza

14th May 2008, 09:21 PM

Atheist - an individual who recognizes there is, most likely, no higher power or intelligent designer in which to answer to

This is MY definition as it most accurately fits my own beliefs

Interesting that you use "most likely" as part of your definition. Are you leaving the door open just in case?:D:wave:

BTW- Your view is more fitted to being agnostic.;)

nitecrawlur

14th May 2008, 09:36 PM

Interesting that you use "most likely" as part of your definition. Are you leaving the door open just in case?:D:wave:

I am in no position to to say there is definately no supernatural being or intelligent designer. I can't prove there isn't. But, I can't prove there aren't unicorns on the dark side of the moon either. So does that mean there are? Do you believe there are unicorns on the moon?

I am more Atheist than Agnostic. I feel comfortable with the idea there is no God. The most definate truthful statement anyone can make about His existence is "I believe there is(-n't) a God". I don't believe there is a God, so that makes me an Atheist. An Agnostic would say "I am uncertian if I believe there is or isn't a God". I claim Atheism because there is no solid evidence to support an intelligent designer. There is only lack of evidence which religion seems to thrive on and fill in scientific gaps with their hocus pocus superstitions.

But anyway, back to the main topic. What is your response to this:

But, to get back on topic, when God told Jeremiah "...I will be with you...", God knew that Jeremiah would misunderstand what He ment by that, because He is omniscient. So, in order for God to make His plan work properly, He had to allow Jeremiah to proceed under that assumption, no matter what happened to Jeremiah. So God intentionally mislead Jeremiah to get what He wanted. That is melavolence. Complete disregard for the well being of others. He manipulated Jeremiah by taking advantage of Jeremiahs ignorance, and trust in Him.

Hentenza

14th May 2008, 10:08 PM

I am in no position to to say there is definately no supernatural being or intelligent designer. I can't prove there isn't. But, I can't prove there aren't unicorns on the dark side of the moon either. So does that mean there are? Do you believe there are unicorns on the moon?

I am more Atheist than Agnostic. I feel comfortable with the idea there is no God. The most definate truthful statement anyone can make about His existence is "I believe there is(-n't) a God". I don't believe there is a God, so that makes me an Atheist. An Agnostic would say "I am uncertian if I believe there is or isn't a God". I claim Atheism because there is no solid evidence to support an intelligent designer. There is only lack of evidence which religion seems to thrive on and fill in scientific gaps with their hocus pocus superstitions.

I just find it interesting that you would call yourself "atheist" since the claims that atheists make can not be proven either logically nor scientifically.

But anyway, back to the main topic. What is your response to this:
[QUOTE]But, to get back on topic, when God told Jeremiah "...I will be with you...", God knew that Jeremiah would misunderstand what He ment by that, because He is omniscient. So, in order for God to make His plan work properly, He had to allow Jeremiah to proceed under that assumption, no matter what happened to Jeremiah. So God intentionally mislead Jeremiah to get what He wanted. That is melavolence. Complete disregard for the well being of others. He manipulated Jeremiah by taking advantage of Jeremiahs ignorance, and trust in Him.

Gee, why don't we just misinterpret Jeremiah shall we. I can't wait to hear your view of what God did to Job.:doh:

nitecrawlur

14th May 2008, 10:18 PM

Gee, why don't we just misinterpret Jeremiah shall we. I can't wait to hear your view of what God did to Job

OK, why don't you clerify Jeremiahs situation? I think God manipulated him. What is your "correct" interpretation? This actually seems like you are attempting to evade this topic.

I just find it interesting that you would call yourself "atheist" since the claims that atheists make can not be proven either logically nor scientifically.

What claims do Atheists make?

....what God did to Job

In time. Let's clear up Jeremiah first since we are already talking about his situation.

Hentenza

14th May 2008, 10:24 PM

[quote=nitecrawlur;46949492]OK, why don't you clerify Jeremiahs situation? I think God manipulated him. What is your "correct" interpretation? This actually seems like you are attempting to evade this topic.

Read post 33;):wave:

What claims do Atheists make?

I am not the atheist. You tell me.:P

In time. Let's clear up Jeremiah first since we are already talking about his situation.
Ok!!

nitecrawlur

14th May 2008, 10:41 PM

I thought we had already established and agreement on this. What Jeremiah was crying about is not important. We aren't talking about what Jeremiah is saying. We, or I, am referring to what God did to get what he needed. He allowed Jeremiah to come to his own conclusions on what He meant. God said "...I will be with you..." and Jeremiah thought it meant that God would protect him. Jeremiah was wrong. But God let that happen since He knew that was what it would take to get what He wanted. God was not concerned with Jeremiahs well-being, whether Jeremiah was hurt or not. That is malevolence. So just so we are clear, I am arguing that God is malevolent and manipulative. He doesn't care about us as long as He gets what He wants. At least in Jeremiahs case.

Let us look at it this way. A man dresses like a police officer but he actually isn't. He then tells a young girl to follow him to an ally. The girl trusts the appearence of the uniform so she does. She is under the impression that the man is a plice officer and the man allows her to think that just to get what he wants. He then rapes her in the ally. He manipulated her, preyed on her trust and ignorance (she trusted the uniform and the idea he was a police officer) and was malevolent in which he raped her.

I can't speak for all Atheists, but the only claim I make is the Bible is inconsistant. Which makes the likely hood of a God (the Christain one anyway) to be much less likely. And I can provide evidence. The difficulty I am having with this is that so many Christians are taught to deny anything that people like myself might say about it. Christians choose not to see.

Hentenza

14th May 2008, 11:34 PM

First, let me apologize to you. I pressed the edit button instead of the quote button and edited your post by mistake. I restated all of what you had posted based on the quotes that I was answering. Again, sorry about that.

[quote=nitecrawlur;46949805]I thought we had already established and agreement on this. What Jeremiah was crying about is not important. We aren't talking about what Jeremiah is saying. We, or I, am referring to what God did to get what he needed. He allowed Jeremiah to come to his own conclusions on what He meant. God said "...I will be with you..." and Jeremiah thought it meant that God would protect him. Jeremiah was wrong. But God let that happen since He knew that was what it would take to get what He wanted. God was not concerned with Jeremiahs well-being, whether Jeremiah was hurt or not. That is malevolence. So just so we are clear, I am arguing that God is malevolent and manipulative. He doesn't care about us as long as He gets what He wants. At least in Jeremiahs case.
What Jeremiah was crying about is extremely important in the context of this chapter. God is not being malevolent but merely allowing Jeremiah to learn to let go of his selfish bothers and grow in his faith. There is plenty of other verses in scripture to support this. Again, read Job.

Let us look at it this way. A man dresses like a police officer but he actually isn't. He then tells a young girl to follow him to an ally. The girl trusts the appearence of the uniform so she does. She is under the impression that the man is a plice officer and the man allows her to think that just to get what he wants. He then rapes her in the ally. He manipulated her, preyed on her trust and ignorance (she trusted the uniform and the idea he was a police officer) and was malevolent in which he raped her.
I can't look at it that way because the perp that you describe is not God. I sure hope that you are not blaming God for the evil that some humans do. That would be quite illogical.

I can't speak for all Atheists, but the only claim I make is the Bible is inconsistant. Which makes the likely hood of a God (the Christain one anyway) to be much less likely. And I can provide evidence. The difficulty I am having with this is that so many Christians are taught to deny anything that people like myself might say about it. Christians choose not to see.

The bible is only inconsistent to those that proof text it to their own selfish ends. There are no inconsistencies in the bible. Christians actually see quite a bit more than you give us credit for. Jesus said it best.

Matthew 13:10-17
10The disciples came to him and asked, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?" 11He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 13This is why I speak to them in parables:
"Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand. 14In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
" 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
15For this people's heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.' 16But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. 17For I tell you the truth, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.

HypnoToad

15th May 2008, 12:56 AM

I don't have to show anything. It is irrelavent if Jeremiah is better or worse after he did what God wanted. My point is that God used Jeremiah to get the results He wanted. If Jeremiah made out better after, great, if not, oh well. That seems to be Gods attitude. That is melavolence. The end product of Jeremiahs status is not what is important. I'm focusing on God and His disregard. I'm focusing on God preying on Jeremiahs trust, ingnorance and manipulating those charactaristics for His benefit.
No, the end result is completely important.

If Jeremiah's life was improved overall, then saying God was "malevolent" is nonsense. If doing God's will made Jeremiah a better person and made his life better, than God saying "follow me" is the right thing to do. There is no "disregard" in that. It is the complete opposite - God knew the best thing for Jeremiah's life was for Jeremiah to serve Him, and God instructed Jeremiah to do so (and never lied about anything that would happen). To call that "malevolent" is asinine.

HypnoToad

15th May 2008, 01:03 AM

Let us look at it this way. A man dresses like a police officer but he actually isn't. He then tells a young girl to follow him to an ally. The girl trusts the appearence of the uniform so she does. She is under the impression that the man is a plice officer and the man allows her to think that just to get what he wants. He then rapes her in the ally. He manipulated her, preyed on her trust and ignorance (she trusted the uniform and the idea he was a police officer) and was malevolent in which he raped her.

Wait a minute - you say the malevolence is in the rape - the end result. I thought the end result has nothing to do with whether or not there's malevolence, you just posted the end result is "not important".

Or, does the end result only matter when you want it to?

Further, God did not pretend to be something He was not. God presented Himself to Jeremiah as God.

nitecrawlur

15th May 2008, 11:36 AM

If Jeremiah's life was improved overall, then saying God was "malevolent" is nonsense. If doing God's will made Jeremiah a better person and made his life better, than God saying "follow me" is the right thing to do. There is no "disregard" in that. It is the complete opposite - God knew the best thing for Jeremiah's life was for Jeremiah to serve Him, and God instructed Jeremiah to do so (and never lied about anything that would happen). To call that "malevolent" is asinine.

Maybe God did know that it would make Jeremaih better off, but that isn't the reason God had Jeremiah do His work. God needed something done, and needed Jeremiah to do it. So Jeremiah did it, and whatever happened to Jeremiah was a bi-product and of no concern to God.

Wait a minute - you say the malevolence is in the rape - the end result. I thought the end result has nothing to do with whether or not there's malevolence, you just posted the end result is "not important".

Or, does the end result only matter when you want it to?

Further, God did not pretend to be something He was not. God presented Himself to Jeremiah as God.

Well, actually the end result would the girls physical and mental condition after the rape. Just like Jeremiahs end result would be his condition after he did Gods work. You like to find loop holes in my statemenst don't you? Just like Christianity finds loop holes in science and fills the gaps with supernatural hocu pocus. (but that is beside the point)

No, God did not pretend to be someone else, but He did intentionally give false impression, just like the man did when he dressed as a police officer.

HypnoToad

15th May 2008, 01:24 PM

Maybe God did know that it would make Jeremaih better off, but that isn't the reason God had Jeremiah do His work. God needed something done, and needed Jeremiah to do it. So Jeremiah did it, and whatever happened to Jeremiah was a bi-product and of no concern to God.
Where do you get this notion that it was "of no concern to God"?

You like to find loop holes in my statemenst don't you?
Not my fault when you contradict yourself. But you still didn't address the question. Does the end result matter or not? First you said it didn't, then you said it does. You can't have it both ways.

Just like Christianity finds loop holes in science and fills the gaps with supernatural hocu pocus. (but that is beside the point)
Like dark matter & dark energy?

No, God did not pretend to be someone else, but He did intentionally give false impression, just like the man did when he dressed as a police officer.
What "false impression"?? Where does God even HINT at the idea that Jeremiah's life will be easy if he obeys?

You like to make all these claims, yet you haven't presented any facts that support them.

nitecrawlur

15th May 2008, 05:46 PM

Not my fault when you contradict yourself. But you still didn't address the question. Does the end result matter or not? First you said it didn't, then you said it does. You can't have it both ways.

I'm not contradicting myself. Why do you det the impression the end result matters? I never said that. The result in both the little girls and Jeremiahs situation is not important for my argument. It's only important on a moral view, whether you think it is wrong or not. Jeremiah, whether he was better or worse off than before he did what God wanted is not important. It just so happened that he was fine. Most likely because God knew He would have further use for him.

Where do you get this notion that it was "of no concern to God"?

Now, if you look at Rev. Paul Hill who killed a doctor that performed abortions. Rev. Paul said he did that because God told him to. He was doing Gods work. (You are in no position to say that God didn't tell him and neither am I since we don't know what Gods plan is). So lets assume God did tell him to do that. Rev. Paul ended up dying from the death penalty, the doctors children will grow without a father. That is malevolence. Gods plan had no obligation or concern to the well being of the doctors children and wife. Nor did God care about Rev. Pauls well being.

What "false impression"?? Where does God even HINT at the idea that Jeremiah's life will be easy if he obeys?

That's just my point. God didn't need to because He allowed Jeremiah to draw his own conclusions. I think you need to reread our conversation. I shouldn't have to repeat myself.

You like to make all these claims, yet you haven't presented any facts that support them

Yes I have presented evidence, but your closed Christian mind won't allow you to open your eyes or even try to understand my view.

HypnoToad

16th May 2008, 12:20 PM

It just so happened that he was fine.
Now you're really not making any sense. Jeremiah was fine - so what the heck is the problem here?? If everything was ok, that supports the argument that God did the right thing and WAS looking out for Jeremiah; that doesn't support your "malevolent" nonsense.

Now, if you look at Rev. Paul Hill who killed a doctor that performed abortions. Rev. Paul said he did that because God told him to. He was doing Gods work. (You are in no position to say that God didn't tell him and neither am I since we don't know what Gods plan is). Wrong. I am in a perfect position to say God didn't tell him to do it. The New Covenant does not allow vigilantism. God will not break His covenant. So, this example is meaningless. Again, I have ask, in your supposed "masters" degree in theology, how much time was spent on Christianity? You keep erring on things that are really basic.

That's just my point. God didn't need to ... So, you admit there was no "false impression". I'm not the one who needs to re-read anything, as you keep going back on your statements.

Yes I have presented evidence, but your closed Christian mind won't allow you to open your eyes or even try to understand my view.What "evidence"?? All you've given are baseless claims.

nitecrawlur

16th May 2008, 06:33 PM

Now you're really not making any sense. Jeremiah was fine - so what the heck is the problem here?? If everything was ok, that supports the argument that God did the right thing and WAS looking out for Jeremiah; that doesn't support your "malevolent" nonsense.

I'm having trouble grasping that you're actually serious. The simple fact that everyone made out alright doesn't make a difference. Someone can be malevolent and still have all other parties be fine in the end. So if guy A is malevolent and has guy B do something for him, and guy A is only concerned with getting the task done and not what happens to guy B. He is malevolent even if guy B ends up being ok. Guy A is malevolent because he doesn't care what happens to guy B. The fact that guy B is ok is just a matter of variables.

Wrong. I am in a perfect position to say God didn't tell him to do it. The New Covenant does not allow vigilantism. God will not break His covenant. So, this example is meaningless. Again, I have ask, in your supposed "masters" degree in theology, how much time was spent on Christianity? You keep erring on things that are really basic.

OK, well the doctor that performed the abortions wasn't breaking the law. So that is not vigilantism. Vigilantism is taking the law into your own hands. Since the doctor wasn't breaking any law, no legal action was necessary. Rev. Paul was doing God's work. You would think, as a Reverend, he would understand any and all of the covenants. It seems like you are manipulating Gods rules to fit your argument. Most of which(covenants) are ridiculous anyway. Thats why there is a New Covenant. And even those are a little "iffy".

Christianity was basic when it started. To be accepted in society and abide by current laws is why its complexity gradually escelated throughout time. In order to continue to make sense, it had to become complex to account for its absudities.

What "evidence"?? All you've given are baseless claims

Hentenza was right, evidence is only as good as the ears that receive it.

You call them "baseless" because they don't fit your beliefs. In that case your claim to a God existing is baseless since you can provide no evidence of a supernatural being existing. Your claim to such a God is less than theory, more like myth, as there is no hard evidence to back it up besides 2000 year old stories and outragous claims from crazy people who shelter under the name of religiosity.

So, you admit there was no "false impression". I'm not the one who needs to re-read anything, as you keep going back on your statements

For God to give a false impression would be like lying. So God said some words "...I will be with you..." and ALLOWED Jeremiah to manufacture the wrong impression. The false impression was Jeremiahs fault as he misunderstood what Gods words meant. This is the third time I have