Was The God Of The Old Testament "bad"?

SkulkBait · February 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Feb 15 2005, 02:35 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Aegeri, you hit the nail on the head. God said that even the land was defiled by the sin of humanity, and the Israelites were to kill *everyone*, even the livestock, and burn everything, even the inanimate objects like jewelry, etc. for that specific reason. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
If sin can infest the land, then why doesn't God order that salem Massechusets, or Auschwitz, or any of a million other places be dealt with in such a manner. Why the inconsistency?

Besides which, the jews certainly weren't without sin (how could they be, they were human after all), yet they were allowed to live.

theclam · February 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Feb 15 2005, 02:35 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Aegeri, you hit the nail on the head. God said that even the land was defiled by the sin of humanity, and the Israelites were to kill *everyone*, even the livestock, and burn everything, even the inanimate objects like jewelry, etc. for that specific reason.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
That's totally justified and reasonable.

Wheeee · February 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Feb 15 2005, 02:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Feb 15 2005, 02:35 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Aegeri, you hit the nail on the head. God said that even the land was defiled by the sin of humanity, and the Israelites were to kill *everyone*, even the livestock, and burn everything, even the inanimate objects like jewelry, etc. for that specific reason. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
If sin can infest the land, then why doesn't God order that salem Massechusets, or Auschwitz, or any of a million other places be dealt with in such a manner. Why the inconsistency?

Besides which, the jews certainly weren't without sin (how could they be, they were human after all), yet they were allowed to live.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (me)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>@theclam: aha! But you remember that when God smote people, they were already sinning all over the place. And remember that He didn't smite the "righteous people." Abraham begged for Sodom, and remember what God said? He said that if He found 10 people who weren't totally corrupt and depraved and utterly angering to God, he would spare the town. Guess what happened there?

God didn't just randomly smite people. He waited until He was sure that almost no one even gave a crap about following Him. And He would always save a few who were still following Him.

</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Aegeri · February 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Feb 15 2005, 02:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> But why does he have an interest in protecting his people then, but not now? And weren't the people he killed also his children? Yet he, like a parent who favors one child over the other, decided that the israelites were worthy and cannonites were not. How can a perfect God choose between his children so readily? </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I think you may have missed my earlier post, which I'll repost:

Skulkbait:

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>It is my opinion that no "perfect" God should have any need to kill anybody.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

But the fact is, we're talking about a God who has to defend his people from other religions that are pretty damn aggressive themselves. If God didn't order his people to take up arms against the other religions, they would have been destroyed themselves by their enemies. There isn't such a thing as 'turning the other cheek' when your neighbours are out to massacre you first.

Again, consider the context that the OT is written in and who it is for. A new monotheistic religion isn't going to last long without some way of whipping out troops and it's populace into defending itself and destroying the other polytheistic religions around it. God isn't about violence or hate, but he isn't stupid and would see that his people need to be able to know they can defend themselves with his blessing.

If they hadn't defended themselves by killing the other nations/religions around them initially, they would have been destroyed themselves. That's not a very good result if you think about it.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Besides which, no one has yet answered my question about why God changed his mind about all the smiting and genocide orders and sent Jesus to go all hippy-love-and-peace on the world. Why is this "perfect" deity so inconcsistent?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Because of the time period he finds himself in. When you first start your nation, religion or idea, it's at its most vulnerable. Those who follow and believe in it kind of need to live so that it can spread. If you lose those starting inviduals you lose everything, especially when a God is concerned. Once you have a position where you have secured your peoples place in the world (and importantly, security from other religions/hostile nations) you can change your strategy somewhat, especially when conversion by the sword is just going to lead to pointless wars of attrition (see the Crusades for a model example of why God seems to have changed his mind, when in reality it's just common sense).

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>But why does he have an interest in protecting his people then, but not now?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

See the above mess for the answer to this.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>And weren't the people he killed also his children?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

That is true, they were his Children just as his people were. I cannot easily answer this, I could probably point out that they had possibly lost touch with him and that they would have sought to destroy his people even more aggressively. In some respects, you must destroy something to protect something. WW2 for example, many people in civilian areas were killed who were non-combatants, but ultimately the goal of defeating an enemy that would have done the same to you (probably worse in fact) is more important.

I'm not saying that is right, I'm just saying that is a reason.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Yet he, like a parent who favors one child over the other, decided that the israelites were worthy and cannonites were not. How can a perfect God choose between his children so readily?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Because one had rejected him utterly and the other were prepared to 'fall into line' so to speak. However, I do not interpret these stories as being 100% literal, rather I take them in historical context where those initially spreading Gods ideas found other religions that were hostile or sought to destroy them. Such stories (destruction of Sodom, butchering of the Cannonites etc) are designed to improve the morale of the troops and encourage what would have been a besieged people that God was directly behind them to keep fighting.

Incidently, I'm no apologist so I'm definitely not an expert when speaking on many of these matters, these are merely answers I've come up with to explain why these things occured.

SkulkBait · February 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Feb 15 2005, 02:38 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheee)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>@theclam: aha! But you remember that when God smote people, they were already sinning all over the place. And remember that He didn't smite the "righteous people." Abraham begged for Sodom, and remember what God said? He said that if He found 10 people who weren't totally corrupt and depraved and utterly angering to God, he would spare the town. Guess what happened there?

God didn't just randomly smite people. He waited until He was sure that almost no one even gave a crap about following Him. And He would always save a few who were still following Him.

</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Ah, so there it is. God is a selfish ****. If you aren't willing to follow hime then you get mercilessly slaughtered. All I have to say to that is "God, if it is a choice between serving you and death, I choose death. You smacktard."

theclam · February 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>@theclam: aha! But you remember that when God smote people, they were already sinning all over the place. And remember that He didn't smite the "righteous people." Abraham begged for Sodom, and remember what God said? He said that if He found 10 people who weren't totally corrupt and depraved and utterly angering to God, he would spare the town. Guess what happened there?

God didn't just randomly smite people. He waited until He was sure that almost no one even gave a crap about following Him. And He would always save a few who were still following Him.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
It's relative. They were all corrupt from God's point of view. God doesn't randomly smite people, he just smites people that he doesn't think are good.

This is really bad. Not to Godwinize, but Hitler did the same thing. Hitler didn't randomly have people killed. He had people killed because he thought they were evil (e.g. Jews) or because they went against his ideals, so they were evil in his mind.

theclam · February 2005

I think SkulkBait and I are rebutting simultaneously with similiar arguments.

Wheeee · February 2005

God is selfish because He has to be.
Let's put it this way. God is like a father. A father provides good things for his children. A father does not want his children to go to strangers and follow them around, because they could kidnap them and have no obligation to give them good things. If a father loves his children, he would take any steps he could to protect them.

Except in this case, God is the only way for the children to get good things, and the strangers are actively out to screw over the children.

*edit* clam, your argument again is that God is like a human. Hitler didn't have omniscience or omnipotence, nor was he wise. God is.

theclam · February 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Feb 15 2005, 02:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> God is selfish because He has to be.
Let's put it this way. God is like a father. A father provides good things for his children. A father does not want his children to go to strangers and follow them around, because they could kidnap them and have no obligation to give them good things. If a father loves his children, he would take any steps he could to protect them.

Except in this case, God is the only way for the children to get good things, and the strangers are actively out to screw over the children.

*edit* clam, your argument again is that God is like a human. Hitler didn't have omniscience or omnipotence, nor was he wise. God is.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
What makes you think that god is omniscient (if he exists at all)?

Also, fathers have to let go. We've got a pretty good civilization right now and we would grow a lot more as humans, if we were to solve our problems ourselves. If God wants to dictate morality, eventually bring an end to the universe, or take a direct hand in human affairs, then he's more like a mad scientist controlling an expirement, than like a father.

Aegeri · February 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Feb 15 2005, 02:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> It's relative. They were all corrupt from God's point of view. God doesn't randomly smite people, he just smites people that he doesn't think are good.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
He only 'smited' those who had completely and utterly rejected him out of hand and (most likely) were a significant threat to the initial spread of Gods people and word. Now that the word of God has spread out and anyone (or nearly anyone) can speak of it without risk of having your head cut off for some unkown God (I dunno, Set? *shrugs*) he no longer does the whole smiting thing, even though I'm certain such people who reject him utterly exist today. Those people though have a choice in believing in God, because that is why he sent his son to die for us absolving us of our crimes (the sin we are born with) if we choose to believe in him. There is no need as a result to smite people on those grounds either, because everyone has a choice.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
This is really bad. Not to Godwinize, but Hitler did the same thing. Hitler didn't randomly have people killed. He had people killed because he thought they were evil (e.g. Jews) or because they went against his ideals, so they were evil in his mind.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

It's true that Hitler used Christian beliefs mixed with eugenics to destroy the Jews whom he viewed as subhuman and corrupt. Hitler did so out of surpreme hate however, there wasn't any sort of purpose aside from meeting his sick ideas of complete genocide. There is a difference between defending yourself against an aggressors who would seek to destroy you, and killing a race of people <i>simply because you don't like them</i>. God certainly didn't kill the Sodomites or Cannonites because he didn't like them, he destroyed them because they were a threat to him and his people.

SkulkBait · February 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Aegeri @ Feb 15 2005, 02:41 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Feb 15 2005, 02:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> But why does he have an interest in protecting his people then, but not now? And weren't the people he killed also his children? Yet he, like a parent who favors one child over the other, decided that the israelites were worthy and cannonites were not. How can a perfect God choose between his children so readily? </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I think you may have missed my earlier post, which I'll repost:

Skulkbait:

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>It is my opinion that no "perfect" God should have any need to kill anybody.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

But the fact is, we're talking about a God who has to defend his people from other religions that are pretty damn aggressive themselves. If God didn't order his people to take up arms against the other religions, they would have been destroyed themselves by their enemies. There isn't such a thing as 'turning the other cheek' when your neighbours are out to massacre you first.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Funny, when Jesus said that he didn't mention any exceptions. Aparently it was OK before and then suddenly it was not.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Again, consider the context that the OT is written in and who it is for. A new monotheistic religion isn't going to last long without some way of whipping out troops and it's populace into defending itself and destroying the other polytheistic religions around it. God isn't about violence or hate, but he isn't stupid and would see that his people need to be able to know they can defend themselves with his blessing. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
They didn't exactly defend themselves did they? They WENT OUT AND COMMITED FLIPPING GENOCIDE!

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If they hadn't defended themselves by killing the other nations/religions around them initially, they would have been destroyed themselves. That's not a very good result if you think about it.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
No, but again we come to God choosing those of his children that would worship him over those that will not. I find this to be a fundamentally selfish action.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Besides which, no one has yet answered my question about why God changed his mind about all the smiting and genocide orders and sent Jesus to go all hippy-love-and-peace on the world. Why is this "perfect" deity so inconcsistent?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Because of the time period he finds himself in. When you first start your nation, religion or idea, it's at its most vulnerable. Those who follow and believe in it kind of need to live so that it can spread. If you lose those starting inviduals you lose everything, especially when a God is concerned.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
What does God lose by his message not being spread? Worshipers? Why does he need any?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Once you have a position where you have secured your peoples place in the world (and importantly, security from other religions/hostile nations) you can change your strategy somewhat, especially when conversion by the sword is just going to lead to pointless wars of attrition (see the Crusades for a model example of why God seems to have changed his mind, when in reality it's just common sense).</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Alright, let me lay this on you: God is omniscient, so ever since before Adam and eve got tossed out of the garden (which God knew would happen btw but let happen anyway so that he had an excuse to cause suffering, the ****) God knew that different factions would form and many of them wouldn't follow him. Why did he wait until those that didn't follow him were so numerous before doing anything aobut it?

SkulkBait · February 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Feb 15 2005, 02:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> God is selfish because He has to be.
Let's put it this way. God is like a father. A father provides good things for his children. A father does not want his children to go to strangers and follow them around, because they could kidnap them and have no obligation to give them good things. If a father loves his children, he would take any steps he could to protect them. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Aparently even if it means killing a whole mess of them.... no wait he didn't kill them, he made his children kill their brothers. Parent of the year!

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Except in this case, God is the only way for the children to get good things, and the strangers are actively out to screw over the children.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
God claims that he is the only way, but that could only be true if you already assume that he is perfect, and I see no reason to draw that conclusion.

Oh, forgot to mention: There were plenty of other ways to deal with the non-believers than to have the isrealites kill them.

theclam · February 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Aegeri @ Feb 15 2005, 02:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Feb 15 2005, 02:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> It's relative. They were all corrupt from God's point of view. God doesn't randomly smite people, he just smites people that he doesn't think are good. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
He only 'smited' those who had completely and utterly rejected him out of hand and (most likely) were a significant threat to the initial spread of Gods people and word. Now that the word of God has spread out and anyone (or nearly anyone) can speak of it without risk of having your head cut off for some unkown God (I dunno, Set? *shrugs*) he no longer does the whole smiting thing, even though I'm certain such people who reject him utterly exist today. Those people though have a choice in believing in God, because that is why he sent his son to die for us absolving us of our crimes (the sin we are born with) if we choose to believe in him. There is no need as a result to smite people on those grounds either, because everyone has a choice.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
This is really bad. Not to Godwinize, but Hitler did the same thing. Hitler didn't randomly have people killed. He had people killed because he thought they were evil (e.g. Jews) or because they went against his ideals, so they were evil in his mind.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

It's true that Hitler used Christian beliefs mixed with eugenics to destroy the Jews whom he viewed as subhuman and corrupt. Hitler did so out of surpreme hate however, there wasn't any sort of purpose aside from meeting his sick ideas of complete genocide. There is a difference between defending yourself against an aggressors who would seek to destroy you, and killing a race of people <i>simply because you don't like them</i>. God certainly didn't kill the Sodomites or Cannonites because he didn't like them, he destroyed them because they were a threat to him and his people.  </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
So it's okay that God killed those people for selfish reasons (because they didn't worship him) as long as he doesn't hate them? I'd say that the reasoning behind genoicde doesn't really matter, no matter why genocide is committed, it's wrong.

Look at it from the perspective of the people God killed. If they rejected their old gods/religion, then their old god would kill them. If they don't convert to Judaism (which was the religion of your God during these events, right?), then God will kill them. What were they supposed to do?

Aegeri · February 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Feb 15 2005, 02:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Funny, when Jesus said that he didn't mention any exceptions. Aparently it was OK before and then suddenly it was not. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I would imagine that God would not have a problem with someone defending themselves from others who would seek to destroy them, but the weapons may have been different. The Christians didn't 'defeat' the Romans by the sword, rather than survived the Romans by not fighting back (just letting the lions tear them apart for example) according to the teachings of Jesus, which did come later. However, it should be noted by this time Christianity (and a belief in God in general) was more solidified by that time and so conversion by something other than the sword was a viable tactic.

I believe quite firmly that taking up arms against hostile nations was an important part of the beginning of the formation of Gods people and had they not done so they would have been destroyed. God is clearly no fool, and would have realised that his people would have to live by the sword or die by it <i>for their particular historical context</i>. When such killing wasn't useful for simple survival, he had his people act more in accordance for how he would prefer them to act, such as what Jesus teaches us.

I will concede that it does seem very two faced.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
They didn't exactly defend themselves did they? They WENT OUT AND COMMITED FLIPPING GENOCIDE!</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Yes, they did do so and completely destroyed the other race and culture. Why God felt that needed to be done to defend his people I do not know.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>No, but again we come to God choosing those of his children that would worship him over those that will not. I find this to be a fundamentally selfish action.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

True enough, but at the same time those who worshipped him were 'his side' so to speak and helping your children to defend and better themselves is to be expected. I don't see that as selfish, I just see that as rewarding those who help you. Additionally, those who weren't worshipping him were QUITE willing to destroy those who were so I don't see any particular problem in God helping them to defend themselves.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>What does God lose by his message not being spread? Worshipers? Why does he need any?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

He wants to give people eternal life in heaven with him, otherwise he wouldn't have bothered to send his Son to earth and allowed him to die on the cross for our sins. It's only natural that God wants to make sure that people hear of him so that people can make a choice to follow him, otherwise he would have permitted the other aggressors to just wipe out his people.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Alright, let me lay this on you: God is omniscient, so ever since before Adam and eve got tossed out of the garden (which God knew would happen btw but let happen anyway so that he had an excuse to cause suffering, the ****) God knew that different factions would form and many of them wouldn't follow him. Why did he wait until those that didn't follow him were so numerous before doing anything aobut it?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Good question, but firstly, Adam and Eve is a parable meant to explain the origins of mankind and didn't literally happen quite like that, I veiw it more as an allegory to natural mechanisms. In any event, God never forced anyone to believe in him and still doesn't, he permitted us free will for that reason. To choose to reject him is part of being human and part of the contract between man and God. What is important here is to realise that these same people you've mentioned were also out to destroy those who believed in God. The fact they were so numerous is probably why he had his people so aggressively defend themselves (to the point of genocide). He obviously didn't destroy everyone, just those who posed a direct threat to the establishment of his people, hence why he isn't smiting all the religions and peoples today that don't believe in him.

Also, to an extent, God factionalised the worlds people when he annihilated Babylon and splintered people across the world (in proxy of course, but still).

theclam

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>So it's okay that God killed those people for selfish reasons (because they didn't worship him) as long as he doesn't hate them? I'd say that the reasoning behind genoicde doesn't really matter, no matter why genocide is committed, it's wrong.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Again, remember that these religions would have destroyed THEM in the same way had they not done so. Genocide is unnacceptable to us these days, but the complete destruction of a civilisations people, cities and knowledge was very common place in the ancient era. If you want to ensure your survival, you must unfortunately ensure that others do not.

I'm not saying I inherently agree with this, I'm just saying this appears to be the reason for the difference in OT/NT Gods.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Look at it from the perspective of the people God killed. If they rejected their old gods/religion, then their old god would kill them. If they don't convert to Judaism (which was the religion of your God during these events, right?), then God will kill them. What were they supposed to do?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Again, that is a tough question but if they were willing to reject their old Gods then I am sure that God would have tried to save them. Again, I do NOT view the particular passages in question as being 100% literal, but rather as stories designed to give a besieged people hope that God will help them against what would have been <i>multiple</i> aggressive polytheistic religions.

Wheeee · February 2005

Well, whether God is omniscient or not is more of a philosophical question.

I'll copy a passage from The Handbook of Christian Apologetics (Peter Kreeft, Ronald K Tacelli) because they say it much better than I do.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><b>The attributes of God</b>
<i>God exists absolutely</i>
By this we do not mean merely that God is always there or that he does not tend to go out of existence. These things are true, in a sense. But we mean something more.
God is the source of being, or existence, for all things. Looking at the universe we see that in every creature there is a distinction between its <i>essence</i> and its <i>existence</i>; that there is a difference between <i>what</i> things are and the fact <i>that</i> they are. That is why, as we saw[note by me - refers to the argument for God based on causality], limited things are by nature existential zeros, why they have a need for being that they cannot themselves supply.
If God is the answer to this question about finite being, then he cannot suffer from this same need. In other words, in God there can be no such distance between <i>what</i> he is and <i>that</i> he is. That he exists is not a happy accident, not due to some other being as his cause. Being must be inseparable from what he is; it must belong to him by nature. More radically put: God must be identical with the fullness of being. That is what we mean by saying that God exists absolutely.

...
<i>God is Transcendent and Immanent</i>
God cannot be a <i>part</i> of the universe. If he were, he would be limited by other parts of it. But God is the <i>Creator</i> of all things, giving them their total being. He cannot be one of them, or the totality of them - for each one of them, and so the totality of them, must be given being, must receive being from God. So God must be <i>other</i> than his creation. This is what we mean by the <i>transcendence</i> of God.
At the same time God must exist in all things. They cannot be set over against him, for then he would be limited by them... God is the Creator, the giver of the total being to all things. As such he must be active in giving them what they need to be and to act. If God were not actively communicating being to all things, they would cease to be. So God must be present to all things at their deepest core, existence itself... In other words, God is immanent.
...
<i>God Is Intelligent</i>
God is the creator and sustainer of all things. He is, for example, the creator and sustainer of all physical and chemical elements and all living organisms. Now every one of these things has an intelligible structure, and fits within a system of intelligible structure - a system in which things act and react with each other in certain specific ways determined by the system. This intelligible correlation of part with part (of which our intelligence grasps the tiniest measure) is something established by God. An intelligible correlation of part with part is the kind of thing we normally refer to as a "plan," as an "act of intelligence." So it is reasonable to affirm that all the vast intelligibility, which the world is given by its Creator, is the work of intelligence, and therefore, that the Creator is intelligent.
There is a second argument for God's being intelligent. Something which distinguishes persons from nonpersons is self-possession. Personal intelligence can unify a diversity and hold it together, as in a work of art or a scientific theory. And that single center which holds many things together with itself allows us to escape the sheer externality of matter, and to use, work, and control those things which have no intelligence. But then God, who is utterly immaterial, and who controls and unifies the whole of creation can surely not be unintelligent. His intelligence cannot be like ours, because ours is tied in a way to matter. It must be infinitely greater. But still it is reasonable to hold that the answer to our question, the mystery we call "God," is intelligent.

<i>God is Omniscient and Omnipotent</i>
To say that God is omniscient and omnipotent means that there can be no real barriers to God's knowing or acting. Apart from himself, God has created everything there is to be known and sustains it in being. So is it conceivable that there is something he could not know or not have power over? It is impossible to think of something as thwarting God's will, unless God himself allows the thwarting - as in the human free choice to sin. But that is a circumstance that <i>requires</i> omnipotence, and therefore is not an argument against it.

<i>God is Good</i>
God, as we have just seen, is the source of all that we recognize as good. Now let us go a step further. God is the source of all being. Therefore God cannot be evil in any way, for whether an evil is moral or physical, it is properly understood in terms of what should be there but is not.... Now there can be no question of failure on the part of the Creator; God <i>is</i> to the fullest. And insofar as goodness is one with perfect being, God is the perfect good.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Short version: If God exists, he is all-knowing and all-powerful and all-good. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' />

*edit* </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Also, fathers have to let go. We've got a pretty good civilization right now and we would grow a lot more as humans, if we were to solve our problems ourselves. If God wants to dictate morality, eventually bring an end to the universe, or take a direct hand in human affairs, then he's more like a mad scientist controlling an expirement, than like a father.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Well, I'm not too confident in human attempts to solve our own problems without referring to God. Communism really didn't pan out like people thought it would.

theclam · February 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>God cannot be a part of the universe. If he were, he would be limited by other parts of it. But God is the Creator of all things, giving them their total being. He cannot be one of them, or the totality of them - for each one of them, and so the totality of them, must be given being, must receive being from God. So God must be other than his creation. This is what we mean by the transcendence of God.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
This is true. God cannot be a part of the universe if he created the universe himself. However, that doesn't mean that there isn't anything beyond God and the universe. God may be part of some sort of greater reality that is completely unobservable by us. There is no evidence one way or another.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>God is the creator and sustainer of all things. He is, for example, the creator and sustainer of all physical and chemical elements and all living organisms. Now every one of these things has an intelligible structure, and fits within a system of intelligible structure - a system in which things act and react with each other in certain specific ways determined by the system.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Just because God is the creator of something doesn't eman that he is the sustainer. Think of the universe like a computer. Just because IBM can create computers and create the laws by which computer software operates, doesn't mean that they have complete knowledge of a computer, or that they sustain that computer.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>To say that God is omniscient and omnipotent means that there can be no real barriers to God's knowing or acting. Apart from himself, God has created everything there is to be known and sustains it in being. So is it conceivable that there is something he could not know or not have power over? It is impossible to think of something as thwarting God's will, unless God himself allows the thwarting - as in the human free choice to sin. But that is a circumstance that requires omnipotence, and therefore is not an argument against it.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
If we use the computer analogy again, then we can see that this statement is wrong. Just because IBM created a computer doesn't mean that they have complete knowledge and power over a computer. God may have designed the laws by which the universe operates and created the initial conditions of the universe, but that doesn't mean he has complete knowledge or power over the universe.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>God, as we have just seen, is the source of all that we recognize as good. Now let us go a step further. God is the source of all being. Therefore God cannot be evil in any way, for whether an evil is moral or physical, it is properly understood in terms of what should be there but is not.... Now there can be no question of failure on the part of the Creator; God is to the fullest. And insofar as goodness is one with perfect being, God is the perfect good.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Complete BS. If God created the universe, then if you assume that he created everything good, then he must also have created everything evil. There would be no genocide without God (just like there would be no virtues without God, assuming that God is the source of good).

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Short version: If <i>my version of the Christian</i> God exists, he is all-knowing and all-powerful and all-good.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I fixed it for you.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Well, I'm not too confident in human attempts to solve our own problems without referring to God. Communism really didn't pan out like people thought it would.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Capitalist Representative Democracies with a shade of Socialism are working out pretty well, though. Last time I checked, the American system of government doesn't refer to God (although American politicians might), but life in America is quite nice. Stalinism and Maoism (IIRC, Communism doesn't deal with religion at all, although the application of Communism in Soviet Russia and China are atheist) refer to God more than the US Constitution does, by requiring the lack of God, instead of the apathy towards religion that we have (although our system becomes less apathetic when religion tries to distort the system).

Wheeee · February 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Feb 15 2005, 03:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>God cannot be a part of the universe. If he were, he would be limited by other parts of it. But God is the Creator of all things, giving them their total being. He cannot be one of them, or the totality of them - for each one of them, and so the totality of them, must be given being, must receive being from God. So God must be other than his creation. This is what we mean by the transcendence of God.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
This is true. God cannot be a part of the universe if he created the universe himself. However, that doesn't mean that there isn't anything beyond God and the universe. God may be part of some sort of greater reality that is completely unobservable by us. There is no evidence one way or another.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
First of all, your statement has no bearing on the argument because it only argues about God for <i>this</i> universe. Also, there's also proof that God is one in the book. Basically it goes like this - a limited, or finite being, needs a cause for the reason that there is a separtion between its nature and its existence. A God that is the fullness of being would necessarily then be infinite. And an infinite God must be only one, because any other infinite or finite God would mean that the first unlimited, infinite being had natures that are different from each other. That contradicts what we said about God being the fullness of being and being unlimited, so God must necessarily be one being.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Just because God is the creator of something doesn't eman that he is the sustainer. Think of the universe like a computer. Just because IBM can create computers and create the laws by which computer software operates, doesn't mean that they have complete knowledge of a computer, or that they sustain that computer. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Since God is outside of time and unlimited by time, he created the whole of creation, not just the beginning, since beginnings don't have any meaning for him. If he's not causing any particular moment in time, it won't exist.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
If we use the computer analogy again, then we can see that this statement is wrong. Just because IBM created a computer doesn't mean that they have complete knowledge and power over a computer. God may have designed the laws by which the universe operates and created the initial conditions of the universe, but that doesn't mean he has complete knowledge or power over the universe.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
See above. You assume that God is limited by time, which I say is an invalid and meaningless concept to a God that is outside of creation.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Complete BS. If God created the universe, then if you assume that he created everything good, then he must also have created everything evil. There would be no genocide without God (just like there would be no virtues without God, assuming that God is the source of good).</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
?? Read again. Evil is properly understood as what should be there, but is not. Evil is defined as the lack of good, and you can't create a lack of yourself when you're the fullness of being, as in point #1. However, people can choose not to accept the good.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Short version: If <i>my version of the Christian</i> God exists, he is all-knowing and all-powerful and all-good.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I fixed it for you.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
nuh-uh, this is complete philosophical reasoning. We haven't even begun to say what God has said he is, we've just ruled out what he can't be. Note how none of this even remotely refers to anything like scripture, the bible, nothing. Ooops, I guess you can't label and dismiss it now.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Capitalist Representative Democracies with a shade of Socialism are working out pretty well, though. Last time I checked, the American system of government doesn't refer to God (although American politicians might), but life in America is quite nice. Stalinism and Maoism (IIRC, Communism doesn't deal with religion at all, although the application of Communism in Soviet Russia and China are atheist) refer to God more than the US Constitution does, by requiring the lack of God, instead of the apathy towards religion that we have (although our system becomes less apathetic when religion tries to distort the system).</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
It's been done before, see: Roman empire. Also, you distort my meaning of "refer to God" - as in using morals directly or indirectly derived from God's commands as a basis for justice. Which in itself is a concept derived from God.

theclam · February 2005

This is my last post tonight, I'm going to bed.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Since God is outside of time and unlimited by time, he created the whole of creation, not just the beginning, since beginnings don't have any meaning for him. If he's not causing any particular moment in time, it won't exist. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
What does time have to do with omnipotence or omniscience?
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>See above. You assume that God is limited by time, which I say is an invalid and meaningless concept to a God that is outside of creation.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
See above.
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>?? Read again. Evil is properly understood as what should be there, but is not. Evil is defined as the lack of good, and you can't create a lack of something when you're the fullness of being, as in point #1. However, people can choose not to accept the good.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I forgot to address the part of the passage you quoted, that said, "God, as we have just seen, is the source of all that we recognize as good. Now let us go a step further. God is the source of all being. Therefore God cannot be evil in any way, for whether an evil is moral or physical, it is properly understood in terms of what should be there but is not...." I disagree with this. Aren't there things that lack good, but aren't necessarily evil? You're painting the world black and white if you see that there are only things that are good or are evil because they lack good. I would say that humanity creates good and evil in this world when they do virtuous things or create injustices. Not everything that we do is either virtuous or an injustice.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>nuh-uh, this is complete philosophical reasoning. We haven't even begun to say what God has said he is, we've just ruled out what he can't be. Note how none of this even remotely refers to anything like scripture, the bible, nothing. Ooops, I guess you can't label and dismiss it now.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I wouldn't say that it is complete philosophical reasoning. It obviously has a large number of presumptions about God.

For example,</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>God exists absolutely
By this we do not mean merely that God is always there or that he does not tend to go out of existence. These things are true, in a sense. But we mean something more.
God is the source of being, or existence, for all things. Looking at the universe we see that in every creature there is a distinction between its essence and its existence; that there is a difference between what things are and the fact that they are. That is why, as we saw[note by me - refers to the argument for God based on causality], limited things are by nature existential zeros, why they have a need for being that they cannot themselves supply.
If God is the answer to this question about finite being, then he cannot suffer from this same need. In other words, in God there can be no such distance between what he is and that he is. That he exists is not a happy accident, not due to some other being as his cause. Being must be inseparable from what he is; it must belong to him by nature. More radically put: God must be identical with the fullness of being. That is what we mean by saying that God exists absolutely.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
This presumes that God is the source of all things.
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>God is Transcendent and Immanent
God cannot be a part of the universe. If he were, he would be limited by other parts of it. But God is the Creator of all things, giving them their total being. He cannot be one of them, or the totality of them - for each one of them, and so the totality of them, must be given being, must receive being from God. So God must be other than his creation. This is what we mean by the transcendence of God.
At the same time God must exist in all things. They cannot be set over against him, for then he would be limited by them... God is the Creator, the giver of the total being to all things. As such he must be active in giving them what they need to be and to act. If God were not actively communicating being to all things, they would cease to be. So God must be present to all things at their deepest core, existence itself... In other words, God is immanent.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
This presumes that God is the "Creator of all things."
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>God Is Intelligent
God is the creator and sustainer of all things. He is, for example, the creator and sustainer of all physical and chemical elements and all living organisms. Now every one of these things has an intelligible structure, and fits within a system of intelligible structure - a system in which things act and react with each other in certain specific ways determined by the system. This intelligible correlation of part with part (of which our intelligence grasps the tiniest measure) is something established by God. An intelligible correlation of part with part is the kind of thing we normally refer to as a "plan," as an "act of intelligence." So it is reasonable to affirm that all the vast intelligibility, which the world is given by its Creator, is the work of intelligence, and therefore, that the Creator is intelligent.
There is a second argument for God's being intelligent. Something which distinguishes persons from nonpersons is self-possession. Personal intelligence can unify a diversity and hold it together, as in a work of art or a scientific theory. And that single center which holds many things together with itself allows us to escape the sheer externality of matter, and to use, work, and control those things which have no intelligence. But then God, who is utterly immaterial, and who controls and unifies the whole of creation can surely not be unintelligent. His intelligence cannot be like ours, because ours is tied in a way to matter. It must be infinitely greater. But still it is reasonable to hold that the answer to our question, the mystery we call "God," is intelligent.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
This presumes that God sustains everything.
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>God is Omniscient and Omnipotent
To say that God is omniscient and omnipotent means that there can be no real barriers to God's knowing or acting. Apart from himself, God has created everything there is to be known and sustains it in being. So is it conceivable that there is something he could not know or not have power over? It is impossible to think of something as thwarting God's will, unless God himself allows the thwarting - as in the human free choice to sin. But that is a circumstance that requires omnipotence, and therefore is not an argument against it.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
This presumes that God is omnipotent and omniscient because he created everything and sustains everything.
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>God is Good
God, as we have just seen, is the source of all that we recognize as good. Now let us go a step further. God is the source of all being. Therefore God cannot be evil in any way, for whether an evil is moral or physical, it is properly understood in terms of what should be there but is not.... Now there can be no question of failure on the part of the Creator; God is to the fullest. And insofar as goodness is one with perfect being, God is the perfect good.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
This presumes that evil is the lack of good. This presumes that God has no evil (he is, after all, the perfect good).

Like I said, these are all presumptions that are based upon a certain Christian understanding of God. I don't see how you can make any presumptions about God as being "all-knowing and all-powerful and all-good" without basing it upon Christian scripture, unless of course, this is a purely hypothetical conception of God (which it isn't). Even if it is purely hypothetical, it still has to create hypothetical postulates about God as a creator and sustainer of all things, that he has no evil, that evil is the lack of good, and that there is nothing that is not either evil or good. This isn't exactly "complete philosophical reasoning," now, is it?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>It's been done before, see: Roman empire. Also, you distort my meaning of "refer to God" - as in using morals directly or indirectly derived from God's commands as a basis for justice. Which in itself is a concept derived from God.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I'm not sure what you mean by the Roman empire. My understanding of the Roman empire is that it is an imperial dictatorship. The official religion was Roman myth, until (IIRC) Constantine, when it became Christianity. It wasn't exactly a moral society. It was partially destroyed by barbarians and dissolved sometime around 400-600 AD. Now, what part of this are you referring to?

Also, what parts of American justice are derived from religion? We owe a heck of a lot more to Greek philosophy and English common law than we do to Christianity. We probably owe more to Hammurabi than we do to Jesus. The founding fathers were Christians, Deists, and Agnostics, and purposely decided to create a government formed without a basis in, or control over, religion.

I'm tired, so I bid you goodnight.

SkulkBait · February 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Feb 15 2005, 03:20 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Short version: If God exists, he is all-knowing and all-powerful and all-good. <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' />
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Those statements assume quite a bit and are by no means logical proof that if there is a God then he must x y and z. Nor do they give any real insight into the nature of God's omniscience in the context of my argument.

Whats more, you can't apply those statements to the OT "God" unless you assume that there are no "Gods" above him, and there isn't any proof of that either.

@Aegrei I believe we have come to an agreement that, at the very least, God's actions in the OT are questionable. However, I personally believe that any God so great as to be called perfect should be able to solve problems without violence.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Also, there's also proof that God is one in the book. Basically it goes like this - a limited, or finite being, needs a cause for the reason that there is a separtion between its nature and its existence. A God that is the fullness of being would necessarily then be infinite. And an infinite God must be only one, because any other infinite or finite God would mean that the first unlimited, infinite being had natures that are different from each other.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
But the logic of this reality need not apply outside of it, catch my drift? Just as time has no meaning outside of our universe, infinity doesn't either. In fact, any of the qualities we apply to our reality only have meaning within our reality, outside of that anything goes. It is pointless to apply logic outside of this reality.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Evil is properly understood as what should be there, but is not. Evil is defined as the lack of good, and you can't create a lack of yourself when you're the fullness of being, as in point #1. However, people can choose not to accept the good.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
And these people were created by God, so must be good.... but if they were good, why would they choose evil? Ultimately all evil stems from God as he is the creator of all things, right? People are created by God, people do evil things, therefor God has created evil. Worse yet God, being omniscient, knew that his creations would do evil and created them anyway.

Pepe_Muffassa · February 2005

I know this gets a little more into the theory of God, but perhaps this will stem the tide of "Evil comes from God" arguments.

Think of God like a flash light - it shines, it illuminates, it gives off light. By its very nature - being light - there is darkness.

Now, God is the ultimate flashlight - so bright that even daylight casts a shadow in his presence. Everything is dark in comparison. That is the nature of Gods goodness. There is no evil in him, rather everything compared to him is evil.

Circumstantial evidence for this analogy - God allowed Moses to see "his backside" and from that day onward, Moses face glowed.

If you want really good reasoning for why God killed the other nations, you should really read the link that Legionaired posted - reposted <a href='http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html' target='_blank'>here</a> for your convenience. It is quite interesting, and gives a good explanaiton. I understand that it is a bit long - so only read the first bit if you want, but if you really want to know how the God of the OT works, this is a good tool.

Gotta love Apologetics - there is nothing new under the sun.

Legionnaired · February 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Aegeri @ Feb 15 2005, 02:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AvengerX @ Feb 15 2005, 01:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> you seem to be caught up on the whole killing people bit </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I imagine so, it's still hard to try and realise why the OT is so 'different' from the NT, but when you take it in it's proper context that its designed to be 'smiting' the other aggressive polytheistic religions it would have found itself around it makes sense. Nothing like a bit of fire and brimstone to put other religions in their place.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
in the second coming at the battle of armagedden its prophicised that the collition agaisnt the jews (an army of over 20 million or something I can't remember off the top of my head) is gonna go to kill the jews, then jesus is going to come back and kill them all.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

I doubt it.

What exactly is the remaining 5,980,000 (Minus those that are Jewish) doing anyway? I think this isn't really very credible as an idea. Of course, when this 'battle' occurs will be quite a riot I'm sure, because they thought it would be in the year 1000 (you know, the End is Nigh people), 1100, 1200 etc basically every century for a long time. Look at that, the world is still here!

Of course, if you take revelations in its proper context you begin to realise that it predicts the (eventual) victory of Christianity over the Romans such as Emperor Nero who were attempting to stamp them out.
 </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Actually, Revelations predicts a large battle in the holy land, with soldiers from the North, East, and European areas the actual text says that 'And I saw coming out of the mouth of the dragon(figurative) and out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet, three unclean spirits like frogs. For they are spirits of demons, performing signs, which go out to the kinds of the whole world, to gather them together for the war of the great day of God, the Almighty."

One army, John says he 'Heard their number,' and it was 200 Million!(Rev 9:16) No nation on the face of the earth has ever had the infrastructure to field 200 Million troops. There's also fortold two prophets that testify in Jeuselem in the last days, and it's written that every single person on the face of the earth will be able to see them as they are killed. Not possible until the advent of the information age. Also, there is a predicted judgement and passing away of the earth entirely, as well as a massive ressurection. A first-century man using figurative language for things he'd see in the modern age is one thing, but describing things this intense shows that the events perdicted in Rev. haven't happened yet, and the Roman empire is long gone.

Sorry to skip over 4 pages of the thread posting this, I'll read back through it all when I have the time.

SkulkBait · February 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe Muffassa @ Feb 15 2005, 08:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I know this gets a little more into the theory of God, but perhaps this will stem the tide of "Evil comes from God" arguments.

Think of God like a flash light - it shines, it illuminates, it gives off light. By its very nature - being light - there is darkness.

Now, God is the ultimate flashlight - so bright that even daylight casts a shadow in his presence. Everything is dark in comparison. That is the nature of Gods goodness. There is no evil in him, rather everything compared to him is evil.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
God crated everything correct? So the darkness must also be part of that creation. Using your analogy: without the flashlight nothing exists at all, neither light nor darkness. So the dark cannot exist without the flashlight to create it.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
If you want really good reasoning for why God killed the other nations, you should really read the link that Legionaired posted - reposted <a href='http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html' target='_blank'>here</a> for your convenience. It is quite interesting, and gives a good explanaiton. I understand that it is a bit long - so only read the first bit if you want, but if you really want to know how the God of the OT works, this is a good tool.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I don't understand why no one will bother to summarize it. *sigh* I suppose I have to read it... But of course it doesn't matter, since the link assumes that genocide is justifiable in the first place, I don't believe that.

Legionnaired · February 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Feb 15 2005, 11:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe Muffassa @ Feb 15 2005, 08:58 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> I know this gets a little more into the theory of God, but perhaps this will stem the tide of "Evil comes from God" arguments.

Think of God like a flash light - it shines, it illuminates, it gives off light. By its very nature - being light - there is darkness.

Now, God is the ultimate flashlight - so bright that even daylight casts a shadow in his presence. Everything is dark in comparison. That is the nature of Gods goodness. There is no evil in him, rather everything compared to him is evil.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
God crated everything correct? So the darkness must also be part of that creation. Using your analogy: without the flashlight nothing exists at all, neither light nor darkness. So the dark cannot exist without the flashlight to create it.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
If you want really good reasoning for why God killed the other nations, you should really read the link that Legionaired posted - reposted <a href='http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html' target='_blank'>here</a> for your convenience. It is quite interesting, and gives a good explanaiton. I understand that it is a bit long - so only read the first bit if you want, but if you really want to know how the God of the OT works, this is a good tool.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I don't understand why no one will bother to summarize it. *sigh* I suppose I have to read it... But of course it doesn't matter, since the link assumes that genocide is justifiable in the first place, I don't believe that. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Basic summary, from the article, says:
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
There is an obvious pattern here:

1. The annihilations are judgments.
2. These judgments are for publicly-recognized (indeed, international and cross-cultural in scope!) cruelty and violence of an EXTREME and WIDESPREAD nature.
3. These judgments are preceded by LONG PERIODS of warning/exposure to truth (and therefore, opportunity to "change outcomes").
4. Innocent adults are given a 'way out'
5. Household members share in the fortunes of the parents (for good or ill).
6. Somebody ALWAYS escapes (Lot, Noah, Kenites)
7. These are exceptional cases--there are VERY, VERY few of these.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

Trust me though, take an hour or so and read through it, It's got a great deal of info.

Wheeee · February 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> This is my last post tonight, I'm going to bed.

What does time have to do with omnipotence or omniscience?
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Um... you claimed that God could have created the universe like the wind-up clock scenario. I'm arguing this is meaningless because the wind-up clock scenario assumes that God is bound by time much as we are, which since you agreed that God was outside of creation, of which time is part of, makes your claim self-defeating.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I forgot to address the part of the passage you quoted, that said, "God, as we have just seen, is the source of all that we recognize as good. Now let us go a step further. God is the source of all being. Therefore God cannot be evil in any way, for whether an evil is moral or physical, it is properly understood in terms of what should be there but is not...." I disagree with this. Aren't there things that lack good, but aren't necessarily evil? You're painting the world black and white if you see that there are only things that are good or are evil because they lack good. I would say that humanity creates good and evil in this world when they do virtuous things or create injustices. Not everything that we do is either virtuous or an injustice.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I never claimed that all things were either good or evil. I only said that where evil exists, it is as a lack of good. "Do virtuous things or create injustices..." - doesn't injustice mean "a lack of justice"? I don't really know what you're trying to argue here. If we take it to be true that the state of existence is somehow "better" than non-existence, then it follows that since God *is* existence, he would be all good. If you want to disagree with that point, then we can debate.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
For example, This presumes that God is the source of all things. </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Erm...well, since we are talking about the God that created the universe, that's a moot point. I mean, our very definition of God is based on being the cause of all things that need a cause, that have distance between their nature and their existence. Do I need to give you the causal argument for the existence of God?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>This presumes that God is the "Creator of all things."</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
This presumes that he is not, which doesn't really make sense since you yourself said that God would be outside his creation. I don't get it.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>This presumes that God sustains everything.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Erm, didn't you read that bit about time?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>This presumes that God is omnipotent and omniscient because he created everything and sustains everything.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Well, since your challenges have already been dealt with, this argument holds no water.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>This presumes that evil is the lack of good. This presumes that God has no evil (he is, after all, the perfect good).</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
We are defining evil as lack of good. How else would you define it? Give me a good definition.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Like I said, these are all presumptions that are based upon a certain Christian understanding of God. I don't see how you can make any presumptions about God as being "all-knowing and all-powerful and all-good" without basing it upon Christian scripture, unless of course, this is a purely hypothetical conception of God (which it isn't). Even if it is purely hypothetical, it still has to create hypothetical postulates about God as a creator and sustainer of all things, that he has no evil, that evil is the lack of good, and that there is nothing that is not either evil or good. This isn't exactly "complete philosophical reasoning," now, is it?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I already gave you the reasons why, if you start from scratch. Without scripture.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I'm not sure what you mean by the Roman empire. My understanding of the Roman empire is that it is an imperial dictatorship. The official religion was Roman myth, until (IIRC) Constantine, when it became Christianity. It wasn't exactly a moral society. It was partially destroyed by barbarians and dissolved sometime around 400-600 AD. Now, what part of this are you referring to?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Never mind, I misread your post. Ignore that part.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Also, what parts of American justice are derived from religion? We owe a heck of a lot more to Greek philosophy and English common law than we do to Christianity. We probably owe more to Hammurabi than we do to Jesus. The founding fathers were Christians, Deists, and Agnostics, and purposely decided to create a government formed without a basis in, or control over, religion.

I'm tired, so I bid you goodnight.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
The very concept of justice <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' />

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Skulkbait)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>God created everything correct? So the darkness must also be part of that creation. Using your analogy: without the flashlight nothing exists at all, neither light nor darkness. So the dark cannot exist without the flashlight to create it.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Not true. This is where free will comes in. God gives us a choice to choose him, or not. If we don't choose him, we are now apart from him. Since he is the light, and all the light, we cannot be light too. Therefore we are dark.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Those statements assume quite a bit and are by no means logical proof that if there is a God then he must x y and z. Nor do they give any real insight into the nature of God's omniscience in the context of my argument.

Whats more, you can't apply those statements to the OT "God" unless you assume that there are no "Gods" above him, and there isn't any proof of that either.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Whether or not the OT God is the same as this hypothetical God we have been talking about is where the philosophy comes into contact with scripture and revelation. And what do you mean it doesn't give real insight to the nature of God's omniscience? What kind of insight are you looking for here?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>But the logic of this reality need not apply outside of it, catch my drift? Just as time has no meaning outside of our universe, infinity doesn't either. In fact, any of the qualities we apply to our reality only have meaning within our reality, outside of that anything goes. It is pointless to apply logic outside of this reality.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Not necessarily true. God could have a super-logic that we only have a rudimentary grasp of as our own logic. But to claim that God could create something that is opposed to his nature, that is stretching it. God does not do stupid things like create rocks that are too heavy for him to lift, because it's a meaningless concept. Neither does God contradict his own nature. If he were not logical, why would he create a logical world/universe? We already pointed out that if evil is considered to be a lack of good, God is all good. If, then, the universe's logic defies God's illogic, would that not mean that the universe is evil?

*edit* erm...quote tags messing up?

Sky · February 2005

Has anyone given any thought to the possibility that the reason the Old Testament and the New Testament sometimes seem to clash is because of different authors/translators/interpreters? I mean, the Old Testament is shared between a number of religions, but the New Testament is only used by Christians, so it makes sense that the Old Testament would remain relatively stable while the New Testament was written and edited with a different view of God (through Jesus).

Wheeee · February 2005

^I agree, somewhat. Although I don't think there's as much incongruity as people here claim, I would say that that is at least partially responsible for the appearance of incongruity.

SkulkBait · February 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Feb 15 2005, 01:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Skulkbait)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>God created everything correct? So the darkness must also be part of that creation. Using your analogy: without the flashlight nothing exists at all, neither light nor darkness. So the dark cannot exist without the flashlight to create it.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Not true. This is where free will comes in. God gives us a choice to choose him, or not. If we don't choose him, we are now apart from him. Since he is the light, and all the light, we cannot be light too. Therefore we are dark.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
And he created us, therefore God created the dark, or evil as it were. If God creates it, and it does evil, then God is ultimately the source of that evil. If this is not the case then God is not the source of all things.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Those statements assume quite a bit and are by no means logical proof that if there is a God then he must x y and z. Nor do they give any real insight into the nature of God's omniscience in the context of my argument.

Whats more, you can't apply those statements to the OT "God" unless you assume that there are no "Gods" above him, and there isn't any proof of that either.
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Whether or not the OT God is the same as this hypothetical God we have been talking about is where the philosophy comes into contact with scripture and revelation. And what do you mean it doesn't give real insight to the nature of God's omniscience? What kind of insight are you looking for here?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
You seemed to believe that your post was somehow how relevent and I assumed it was in response to my statement about omniscience:
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Alright, let me lay this on you: God is omniscient, so ever since before Adam and eve got tossed out of the garden (which God knew would happen btw but let happen anyway so that he had an excuse to cause suffering, the ****) God knew that different factions would form and many of them wouldn't follow him. Why did he wait until those that didn't follow him were so numerous before doing anything aobut it?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>But the logic of this reality need not apply outside of it, catch my drift? Just as time has no meaning outside of our universe, infinity doesn't either. In fact, any of the qualities we apply to our reality only have meaning within our reality, outside of that anything goes. It is pointless to apply logic outside of this reality.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Not necessarily true. God could have a super-logic that we only have a rudimentary grasp of as our own logic. But to claim that God could create something that is opposed to his nature, that is stretching it. God does not do stupid things like create rocks that are too heavy for him to lift, because it's a meaningless concept. Neither does God contradict his own nature. If he were not logical, why would he create a logical world/universe? We already pointed out that if evil is considered to be a lack of good, God is all good. If, then, the universe's logic defies God's illogic, would that not mean that the universe is evil?</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I think you mis-understand. The way things work outside of our universe (or reality), in all likelyhood, are so mind-bogglingly different that we can't ever hope to comprehend them in any fasion whatsoever because our brains function based on the rules inherent to our reality. Thus trying to use logic in any form to define God (an entity outside of the universe) is foolish to say the least. Not because logic doesn't exist outside our reality, but because the rules are entirely different.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Has anyone given any thought to the possibility that the reason the Old Testament and the New Testament sometimes seem to clash is because of different authors/translators/interpreters? I mean, the Old Testament is shared between a number of religions, but the New Testament is only used by Christians, so it makes sense that the Old Testament would remain relatively stable while the New Testament was written and edited with a different view of God (through Jesus).</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Possibly, but I would lean more towards the idea that they are really talking about different versions of God entirely and the issue was confused when the NT was written. I have a rather long-winded hypothesis about how and why this happened, but it is offtopic so I'll just summarize: Basically it amounts to Jesus using the established version of God as a base for spreading his own ideas. This, naturally, put jesus in some tight spots on occassion (see: John (8:1-7)).

Pepe_Muffassa · February 2005

To say that God created evil is like saying the apple pie I ate swore at my neighbor - yes, it is a part of me and gave me the energy to do the swearing, but the responsibility is still mine.

Lets put it in other terms - God is Good - it is a property of God, just like I am a white male. I can't change that property, neither can God change his. Now this Good God creates a world - which is also Good - inheriting that property from its maker. Then he creates Man - and Man chooses to reject God - evil.

Now, is God to blame for that choice? Is God to blame for evil? - though everything in His being is good? NO! In fact, that sort of reasoning is absurd!

Ok, so here is where the rubber hits the road. God demands perfection (ultimate good) - anything less deserves death. Therefore, everything / everyone dies. However, you can't blame God for this - it is his nature. In fact, he warned human kind about his nature - reject me and you choose death. But we chose it anyway, day by day.

We all have our own reasons for choosing death - ultimatly they come from a stiff necked nature. We elevate ourselves over God, our own intellect over his, our own morality over his, we become a god unto ourselves. Why? because we can do no other, save through the grace of Jesus.

So your hatred of God is completely normal - there is nothing in your being that desires to know God. Maybe someday that will change - and if it does I hope you realize that it is God changing you, not you changing yourself.

reasa · February 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe Muffassa @ Feb 15 2005, 03:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Ok, so here is where the rubber hits the road. God demands perfection (ultimate good) - anything less deserves death. Therefore, everything / everyone dies. However, you can't blame God for this - it is his nature. In fact, he warned human kind about his nature - reject me and you choose death. But we chose it anyway, day by day.

 </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> 
Yes but God is supposedly all knowing, so he knew exactly what the human race would do, he should have known that Eve would tempt Adam.

For that matter why did God allow Satan to roam freely on his new creation?

Unless God does not know what us humans will do, which in that case, he is not all powerful.

SkulkBait · February 2005

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe Muffassa @ Feb 15 2005, 03:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Lets put it in other terms - God is Good - it is a property of God, just like I am a white male. I can't change that property, neither can God change his. Now this Good God creates a world - which is also Good - inheriting that property from its maker. Then he creates Man - and Man chooses to reject God - evil.

Now, is God to blame for that choice? Is God to blame for evil? - though everything in His being is good? NO! In fact, that sort of reasoning is absurd!
</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
I think whats obsurd is all your analogies. You keep missing the point. if ALL THINGS are ultimately sourced from God, then EVIL ALSO SOURCES FROM GOD. Thats pretty clear isn't it? So either all things come from God, or man is capable of creating some of them himself. Which is it?

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>We all have our own reasons for choosing death - ultimatly they come from a stiff necked nature. We elevate ourselves over God, our own intellect over his, our own morality over his, we become a god unto ourselves. Why? </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
Because God made us in his image. He made us egotistical self-ritious jackasses, just like him.

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>So your hatred of God is completely normal - there is nothing in your being that desires to know God. Maybe someday that will change - and if it does I hope you realize that it is God changing you, not you changing yourself.</td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'>
What now? Is nothing I do because I do it? Its all God's work? So let me get this straight: I do something good its because God helped, I do something bad and its "naughty skulky! no cookie! you must get your evil genes from your mother!"

Was The God Of The Old Testament "bad"?

Comments