Ugh, how I loathe the tactic of taking umbrage at our insults, and accusing atheists of being low-down people, after driving us batty with statements like "You just don't understand scripture" (for simply re/para-phrasing it to give the argument weight, even though our understanding of the scriptures must be comprehensive enough to cover YOUR version and the 10,000 other versions/interpretations of the other versions of Christian we'll encounter on the daily) and constant accusations and threats made against us in the name of your imaginary friends!

You all rely on one version, then arrogantly think you know the mind of this Ultimate Being you propose, based on how YOU and your circle of peers translates/interprets it. Everyone one of you is so arrogant that you each think you have the only version of Scriptural Truth™ that is correct. But what we see is that you all disagree.

See? I did a 30 second search and can easily show that your NASV isn't even Christian, but the work of deranged atheist infidel heathen baby-eating Santaists (yes, deliberate) to corrupt the pure Bible and turn believers into fellow invitees to the atheist Sunday Infant Barbecue.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/NAS...xposed.htm

Edit to Add: This was for GC and crew, not for you Cath... I just saw you responded quickly, between the first and second of my posts here. Just wanted to be sure we were clear.

(March 6, 2016 at 11:18 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(February 9, 2016 at 6:47 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: Then in 2 Samuel 12:13-20, David's son is killed by God because of sins committed by David.

I don't think this is the message that is trying to get across. Even if you take the OT literally, which I certainly don't.   

Since the child was innocent of personal sins, we know that he/she would have been received into heaven immediately upon death. And in this way, the child was spared a lifetime of being mocked and scorned by the people of Israel who would have known that the child was the illegitimate son of David resulting from his adultery with Bathsheba.  

Firstly, such scorning would only be a result of the society that God himself established, a system where rape victims and illegitimate children are stigmatized.

Secondly, you must somehow be unaware that Solomon had a thousand wives and concubines.  Were all of his children scorned as bastards?  Do you not understand that as royalty, this child would live a wonderful life of luxury?  Provided, of course, he isn't killed by royal politics while wrestling for the throne.

Thirdly, do you really think that the child would've preferred to have not lived his life, even if your absurd remark about a life of being scorned were true?  There are tons of people who have shame in their lives, or at least things perceived as shameful by others, and they still very much want to live.

In conclusion, this is the worst argument I've ever heard from you.

Quote:Basically, the child was not punished for what David did, as you seem to think. But rather, God showed mercy to the child by taking it to heaven. 

Mercy?  Did you miss the part where he tortured the child for a week?  Also, where does it say the child went to heaven?  God personally killing him is not a ringing endorsement.  Also, I thought you couldn't get into heaven unless you accepted Jesus as your personal Lord and savior.  How could an infant do that?  If you are of the theology that people ignorant of Christ's existence are forgiven for not believing in him, then WTF is the point in missionary work?  Aside from molesting children and hording wealth (which they use to quiet said children), the church is most known for missionary work.

(March 6, 2016 at 2:56 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Don't let what eat at me? The Babylonian Talmud section?

You have to move on.

(March 4, 2016 at 11:30 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote:

(March 4, 2016 at 9:35 pm)Godschild Wrote: You mean to tell me that you really believe the age of this man changes the entire Bible, that's ridiculous the Bible as a spiritual guide is perfect and without error in this purpose. You nit-pick something so trivial as this, I pity you.


I didn't trumpet anything, the least favorite of mine has the same thing said that's all, this version was translated by many different professional linguist and Biblical scholars from many different denominations, by the way I did not say it wasn't good just one of my least favorites. The King James Bible was translated by a few men all believing the same thing and not only that the king that that version was named after tried to influence these men, stick with it if you wish. I know little about the NKJV because when it came out I was told by reliable people not much was changed. To bad too, they had a chance to bring it up to date. Would you stick with the older science books that we now know have grievous errors, most Christians are intelligent enough to find better translations to learn from.  



True, for man, as I said we own no one that's why the law applies to man and not God. 
No, you called God a murderer which changes the whole context of what you've presented, you meant He was a murderer, that was your original primes. I have no problem with you saying God took the child's life, He did. God took what belonged to Him, God gave the life it's His right to take what belongs to Him.
Kinda' like you can't actually steal from yourself.



The child was sick for a few days and then died, you do not even know if the child ever was in pain, you are grabbing at straws, stop and let's have an intelligent conversation.







Drich is not a clown, he's well educated in scripture. We do disagree on somethings however we agree on the most important thing, that salvation through Christ is man's only hope. Besides I think what he said was quite good.

Firstly, you want to say that Jesus had no power on earth and yet he was never denied power by God. In other words, he never said, "is this your card?" and then the people said no. He was never left hanging by God, except for when He was crucified. So however you want to describe his miracles, it is quite factual that my interpretation in your interpretation are indistinguishable.

How do you know God the Father wouldn't give Him power to heal certain people. There's a huge difference in the way you see Jesus and I see Him. If Jesus had brought His powers from heaven to earth then Satan could have and would have claimed Jesus used powers greater than man to avoid sinning. Satan would not have missed such an opportunity to gloat. Please remember I have said God the Father gave Jesus powers to heal and do other miracles, not the power to resist sin. I given evidence of this through the scriptures in my last post. 

NV Wrote:Now the rest of our argument here is kind of irrelevant to the original post, so before I get into all that stuff some more let me just ask you a couple questions: if I could get you to agree that Deuteronomy 24:16 is talking about a physical death, or a physical execution, then would you agree that I have proven my case? Would you agree that I have provided the backbreaker as advertised? If no, what else do you think I'm lacking in my premises?

All the truth I given goes to show you have no back breaker, so yes they are relevant.
You can't get me to change my mind on the truth, Deut. 24:16 is not speaking to physical death. The verse says a son shall not be put to death for a fathers sin and visa versa. As I said before not all sin required a physical death but all sin requires a spiritual death. The verse doesn't specify certain sins so the meaning therefore is all sin. God allowed generations of families to suffer from certain sins, but death wasn't always part of what God allowed.
Your lacking any proof, you haven't disproved not one of my arguments against what you've presented.

GC

(March 6, 2016 at 2:41 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Innocent of personal sins?  Irrelevant.  Are we or are we not fallen, inheriting the sin of our "first parents"...catholic?  That out of the way, that you think being stricken with illness and murdered is a mercy demonstrates the petty cruelty inherent in your god derived "objective" moral landscape.  Go play in traffic, and keep your mitts off the kiddos.

No, we do not inherit the sin of Adam and Eve, we are born with the a nature to sin even without outside influences. We pay only for the sins we commit, the Bible makes this quite clear, 'NV' brought this to the argument with the verses from Deut. 24:16.

GC

(March 7, 2016 at 1:18 pm)Godschild Wrote:

(March 4, 2016 at 11:30 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: Firstly, you want to say that Jesus had no power on earth and yet he was never denied power by God. In other words, he never said, "is this your card?" and then the people said no. He was never left hanging by God, except for when He was crucified. So however you want to describe his miracles, it is quite factual that my interpretation in your interpretation are indistinguishable.

How do you know God the Father wouldn't give Him power to heal certain people. There's a huge difference in the way you see Jesus and I see Him. If Jesus had brought His powers from heaven to earth then Satan could have and would have claimed Jesus used powers greater than man to avoid sinning. Satan would not have missed such an opportunity to gloat. Please remember I have said God the Father gave Jesus powers to heal and do other miracles, not the power to resist sin. I given evidence of this through the scriptures in my last post. 

NV Wrote:Now the rest of our argument here is kind of irrelevant to the original post, so before I get into all that stuff some more let me just ask you a couple questions: if I could get you to agree that Deuteronomy 24:16 is talking about a physical death, or a physical execution, then would you agree that I have proven my case? Would you agree that I have provided the backbreaker as advertised? If no, what else do you think I'm lacking in my premises?

All the truth I given goes to show you have no back breaker, so yes they are relevant.
You can't get me to change my mind on the truth, Deut. 24:16 is not speaking to physical death. The verse says a son shall not be put to death for a fathers sin and visa versa. As I said before not all sin required a physical death but all sin requires a spiritual death. The verse doesn't specify certain sins so the meaning therefore is all sin. God allowed generations of families to suffer from certain sins, but death wasn't always part of what God allowed.
Your lacking any proof, you haven't disproved not one of my arguments against what you've presented.

GC

(March 7, 2016 at 4:35 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote:

(March 7, 2016 at 1:18 pm)Godschild Wrote:

---

How do you know God the Father wouldn't give Him power to heal certain people. There's a huge difference in the way you see Jesus and I see Him. If Jesus had brought His powers from heaven to earth then Satan could have and would have claimed Jesus used powers greater than man to avoid sinning. Satan would not have missed such an opportunity to gloat. Please remember I have said God the Father gave Jesus powers to heal and do other miracles, not the power to resist sin. I given evidence of this through the scriptures in my last post. 


All the truth I given goes to show you have no back breaker, so yes they are relevant.
You can't get me to change my mind on the truth, Deut. 24:16 is not speaking to physical death. The verse says a son shall not be put to death for a fathers sin and visa versa. As I said before not all sin required a physical death but all sin requires a spiritual death. The verse doesn't specify certain sins so the meaning therefore is all sin. God allowed generations of families to suffer from certain sins, but death wasn't always part of what God allowed.
Your lacking any proof, you haven't disproved not one of my arguments against what you've presented.

GC

---

A draw, how could that be, you've given absolutely no proof for your argument, maybe we should just say you decided to leave well enough alone.

GC

(March 8, 2016 at 3:26 pm)Godschild Wrote: you've given absolutely no proof for your argument,

(February 9, 2016 at 6:47 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: I've spoken with Christians who are OK with contradictions in the Bible, Christians who believe in the Big Bang and unguided evolution, and Christians who disregard the unsavory things in the Old Testament. But I have never seen a good response to my backbreaker here.  The Christian retreats behind the shield of faith, no longer even sure what that faith is in.

It's a simple question:
Is God above the law or not?

Simple answer: yes.

(March 7, 2016 at 1:29 pm)Godschild Wrote: No, we do not inherit the sin of Adam and Eve, we are born with the a nature to sin even without outside influences. We pay only for the sins we commit, the Bible makes this quite clear, 'NV' brought this to the argument with the verses from Deut. 24:16.

GC

Are you a catholic?  Are you defending the beliefs of catholics - to which I explicitly referred? If you have some beef...try taking it up with the catholics rather than with me....it's not my bullshit story, nor do I appreciate being the place where you can beat out your dirty laundry with each other while avoiding any unseemly disagreements you might have in front of the heathens.

@Alpha, then god is beneath my respect or allegiance.