Nihilism

[NCRAVEN]

Also if God can create the rock in the rock in the first place, shouldn't he also be able to lift it since they're both impossible. If he can do one, then he can do the other, therefore reaffirming his omnipotence....I think lol

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

Can God create a square circle?

[NCRAVEN]

What came before?

Before big bangs... or creations... or whatever... what came before?

I find all attempts to answer this question, whether theistic or atheistic.... equally unsatisfying. And this places theism and atheism on equal footing as regards what came before. Ergo Agnosticism.

Nothing came before. If the big bang is the beginning of all space, matter and time, than nothing existed before the big bang cause there was no time for anything to exist, and no space to put anything.

If there is a God, I can scarcely imagine him to be anything like the vengeful tyrant of the Old Testament, so I suspect he'll forgive my indecision.

You may be one of the most knowledgeable educated posters we've had on this board, so I don't say this as an insult. I think you believe this about the God of the OT because you'd might not understand it.

For example Genesis 5:
"5 The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”


He didn't wipe man from the earth because he was some irritable old man yelling get off my lawn. He was "troubled" or I might read that is grieving, but just and righteous he wiped evil from the earth.

Which brings me to another point... We see all the evil in the world and ask "If God is good why doesn't he stop evil" here we have a story of him doing something about it and we call him a vengeful tyrant. Seems like he can't win.

[owknows]

He didn't wipe man from the earth because he was some irritable old man yelling get off my lawn. He was "troubled" or I might read that is grieving, but just and righteous he wiped evil from the earth.

If we are to take the Old Testament at it's word, we must reconcile the idea that God commanded those who worshiped him, to slaughter innocent children on the point of a sword.

Many times.

I can't reconcile a God that would find it necessary to slaughter innocent children by intent... worse yet demanding that those who followed in his name, be complicit in the act.

I find it more reasonable to think that a loving and benevolent God would not make such demands... and that any writing to the contrary is simply man's projecting of his own flawed understanding of what a God ought be.

[NCRAVEN]

He didn't wipe man from the earth because he was some irritable old man yelling get off my lawn. He was "troubled" or I might read that is grieving, but just and righteous he wiped evil from the earth.

If we are to take the Old Testament at it's word, we must reconcile the idea that God commanded those who worshiped him, to slaughter innocent children on the point of a sword.

Many times.

I can't reconcile a God that would find it necessary to slaughter innocent children by intent... worse yet demanding that those who followed in his name, be complicit in the act.

I find it more reasonable to think that a loving and benevolent God would not make such demands... and that any writing to the contrary is simply man's projecting of his own flawed understanding of what a God ought be.

You’ll have to point me to what your talking about to see if there’s either an explanation or is it possible the people performing those acts were wrong about what they believed.

[owknows]

You’ll have to point me to what your talking about to see if there’s either an explanation or is it possible the people performing those acts were wrong about what they believed.

Joshua 8 would be a good place to start.

But all of the conquest of Israel is worth reading for this purpose.

[NCRAVEN]

Joshua 8 would be a good place to start.

But all of the conquest of Israel is worth reading for this purpose.

Before I check it out are you open to a discussion or is your mind made up?

[owknows]

Before I check it out are you open to a discussion or is your mind made up?

I'm always open to a good faith discussion.. and expect exactly that.

[Greg]

He didn't wipe man from the earth because he was some irritable old man yelling get off my lawn. He was "troubled" or I might read that is grieving, but just and righteous he wiped evil from the earth.

If we are to take the Old Testament at it's word, we must reconcile the idea that God commanded those who worshiped him, to slaughter innocent children on the point of a sword.

Many times.

I can't reconcile a God that would find it necessary to slaughter innocent children by intent... worse yet demanding that those who followed in his name, be complicit in the act.

I find it more reasonable to think that a loving and benevolent God would not make such demands... and that any writing to the contrary is simply man's projecting of his own flawed understanding of what a God ought be.

It is hard to digest but keep in mind Israel was chosen. They were chosen to bring forth the Messiah. This may not have been possible without these people groups being near wiped out. If you read your OT closely you will see there were also survivors.

But also keep this in mind, children not of the age of accountability are, in my view and that of many Christians, brought into the presence of God upon death. If you read what the adults were doing in these people groups, like child sacrifice on a burning hot steel idol (Molech), literally searing them to death, removing them from the presence of the chosen people makes sense.

[owknows]

It is hard to digest but keep in mind Israel was chosen. They were chosen to bring forth the Messiah. This may not have been possible without these people groups being near wiped out. If you read your OT closely you will see there were also survivors.

But also keep this in mind, children not of the age of accountability are, in my view and that of many Christians, brought into the presence of God upon death. If you read what the adults were doing in these people groups, like child sacrifice on a burning hot steel idol (Molech), literally searing them to death, removing them from the presence of the chosen people makes sense.

I look at this as situational ethics.

Children are innocents. And all are presumably God's creation.

I want you to consider what this was like for the participants. Not to be dramatic, but to try to understand what they were being asked to do in the name of God.

They literally chased down children. Children who were most surely terrified. Children who had just witnessed the murder of the parents. And they captured them screaming. And they disemboweled them.

This wasn't a plague visited upon the host of Ai... where God quietly took the firstborn of some unknown affliction.

This was the murder of terrified children. A murder that the Old Testament teaches us was commanded of the host of Israel, by God himself. This was God demanding that soldiers of the Army of Joshua disembowel children in his name.

And the Bible tells us that they did.

In Jericho, and in Ai... and in dozens of other cities all named and detailed.

I can find no possible reconciliation between the description of events commanded by God in Joshua 7-11... and the concept of a loving benevolent God.

And bear in mind... I don't think this discounts the possibility of a benevolent designer of the universe. A Loving God... But I do think it exposes the Old Testament as the chronicle of a Bronze Age host... trying to carve out a stake after escaping from bondage. And their flawed understanding of what a great and powerful God would be. The pentultimate powerful warrior king.

By contrast the description of the Nazarene in the New Testament is rationally consistent with the idea of a loving benevolent deity. Who demonstrated persuasion (as opposed to force) as the means of achieving an end.

Which also rationally reconciles... as free will acceptance of a premise... faith GIVEN.. is the only meaningful expression of conviction.

[NCRAVEN]

I look at this as situational ethics.

Children are innocents. And all are presumably God's creation.

I want you to consider what this was like for the participants. Not to be dramatic, but to try to understand what they were being asked to do in the name of God.

They literally chased down children. Children who were most surely terrified. Children who had just witnessed the murder of the parents. And they captured them screaming. And they disemboweled them.

This wasn't a plague visited upon the host of Ai... where God quietly took the firstborn of some unknown affliction.

This was the murder of terrified children. A murder that the Old Testament teaches us was commanded of the host of Israel, by God himself. This was God demanding that soldiers of the Army of Joshua disembowel children in his name.

And the Bible tells us that they did.

In Jericho, and in Ai... and in dozens of other cities all named and detailed.

I can find no possible reconciliation between the description of events commanded by God in Joshua 7-11... and the concept of a loving benevolent God.

And bear in mind... I don't think this discounts the possibility of a benevolent designer of the universe. A Loving God... But I do think it exposes the Old Testament as the chronicle of a Bronze Age host... trying to carve out a stake after escaping from bondage. And their flawed understanding of what a great and powerful God would be. The pentultimate powerful warrior king.

By contrast the description of the Nazarene in the New Testament is rationally consistent with the idea of a loving benevolent deity. Who demonstrated persuasion (as opposed to force) as the means of achieving an end.

Which also rationally reconciles... as free will acceptance of a premise... faith GIVEN.. is the only meaningful expression of conviction.

I’ll respond to the Joshua 8 topic later but to address this real quick. No one is truly innocent two verses that come to mind “for ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”, “the wages of sin is death” and well… we all earn out wages.

Not saying that to justify or answer your point about Joshua but that stuck out to me.

[Culex]

Not true.

It is and will always be true that you could not bench press 225 lbs. on 7/8/2014 but you could on 12/9/2017. Both are true at this moment (assuming you actually could on 12/9 and not on 7/8). They are now both eternal truths.

The God/rock thing is a logical fallacy. Your bench press statements are simply when a thing was true at one point and not another, but in both cases there is truth and those truths remain.

What I meant was moreso that they can't both be true at the exact same time. On December 5th 2021 at 12:30 PM, I can either bench press that amount or I can't. It's one or the other.

[owknows]

I’ll respond to the Joshua 8 topic later but to address this real quick. No one is truly innocent two verses that come to mind “for ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”, “the wages of sin is death” and well… we all earn out wages.

Not saying that to justify or answer your point about Joshua but that stuck out to me.

I understand the dogma here.

But it isn't rationally reconcilable.

Sin requires intent. Intent requires comprehension of circumstances.

Comprehension of Circumstances requires sufficient mental development.

Children, at least to some age, lack that development.