Four questions for Christians

[evenheathen]

God's incredibly specific laws of the OT were meant to distinguish the Jews as God's people who preserved God's law in a world that had forgotten it.

The specific laws of the OT were written by the people of the Jewish culture at the time to be directly influential to the people of that culture at that time. Interesting that Deuteronomy was "found" as a book of god's law at the same time as the other books redacted by Ezra were presented by the court of Josiah in Judah after the exile.

There is little, if any, mention of life after death in the OT, let alone promises of glory and joy,

This is because the concept of heaven and hell had not been invented yet in ancient Jewish culture. The idea of 'living on" was thought of as one's legacy, hence the importance of inheritance and blessings of the firstborn sons.

God never destroyed man itself. He destroyed many bad people, but he didn't start over. Humanity continued with ordinary Homo sapiens, just as it had before. Noah himself was a vessel of God preserving the human race.

Apologetics 101. God didn't kill people, people killed themselves using god as the weapon. Even though god loved all of those people as much as he loves you. It was just a different time back then. But god never changes.

---

I didn't take the Bible as fact, but realized that it was authored by Christians. Do you disagree with that?
So if Christians say bad things about themselves in their own book, such events are more credible than events that support Christianity.

The whole point of religion, all religion, is to make sense of weird, bad shit happening around them in the natural world. Human tendency is pattern seeking and we tend to anthropomorphize what we don't understand. The whole point of christianity is to legitimize the horrible things that happen in a natural world and give hope to those that will believe. It's been the tendency of mankind to do this from the onset of sentience, hence a billion different religions. Christianity had the help of Rome.

As for the empty tomb, we are yet to find evidence of Christ's corpse having remained in the ground.

We are yet to find good evidence of the crucifixion of a significant christ ever happening.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

God's incredibly specific laws of the OT were meant to distinguish the Jews as God's people who preserved God's law in a world that had forgotten it. But these laws were only part of the formula. In the OT, the physical was used to indicate the spiritual, but in the NT, Christ showed the full path to salvation was based on the spiritual.

What? So god used his laws to choose a group of people and abandon the rest of the world. Then he tricked them into following the laws, when actually, if only they had lived till christ came, they'd find the true path to salvation had nothing to do with all those laws?

If Judeo-Christian theism was based off of the promise of heaven, the Bible would be more top-down. There is little, if any, mention of life after death in the OT, let alone promises of glory and joy, contrary to Islam.
Paul did describe his hope in a "prize" in 2 Timothy 4:8, but, he is thankful in suffering for much better reasons than the stereotypical Christian motive.
"More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us." Romans 5:3-5
"We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies." 2 Corinthians 4:8-10
"That I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death." Philippians 3:10
"Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church." Colossians 1:24
Suffering brought Paul closer to Christ's suffering, and he was glad in the experience of it because his suffering was inherently good, not because it would soon be over. Or else he would have said a few Masses and killed himself.

What are you replying to here? I said paul believed in heaven, it's not surprising he doesn't care about his life. He believes his life is a tool of god and the endgoal for him is to be with god in heaven. And i still have no idea what this has to do with anything? is it supposed to prove something that paul doesn't care about his suffering?

God's laws in the Torah were made for the Israelite people to guide them spiritually, so it drew on much of what they already knew with their OT culture. Surviving in the desert was hard work, not to mention the constant fighting, so men played a critical role in supporting families. Women didn't fight wars, and so they generally worked at home, not to mention that men protected them from those who would overpower and exploit them. Men and women were equal, but fit into different caches of society. That's all.

you don't know what equality means either do you? Yea, one thing your god is quite consistent about is never teaching his people much. Oh, it was hard to survive in the desert, let's resort to the ways you already know. oh, you think your women are worth less, ok i don't know how to explain to you, so let's play along with that as well. If god was as smart as all you people put it, you'd think he'll teach them something useful. Not like he's above meddling with their "fates".

God never destroyed man itself. He destroyed many bad people, but he didn't start over. Humanity continued with ordinary Homo sapiens, just as it had before. Noah himself was a vessel of God preserving the human race.

Yea i know what you mean, sometimes when i'm writing and nothing sounds right, i'd delete the entire thing but the title. i'm preserving it you see, not starting over. The title's my vessel.

To wish bad of somebody else is a bad thing. Hate is not inherently evil. God hates.

Nope, that's not bad either. You were the one who said hate is sin, sin is ungodly. that is word for word.

[evenheathen]

double post.

[Consilius]

God's incredibly specific laws of the OT were meant to distinguish the Jews as God's people who preserved God's law in a world that had forgotten it.

The specific laws of the OT were written by the people of the Jewish culture at the time to be directly influential to the people of that culture at that time. Interesting that Deuteronomy was "found" as a book of god's law at the same time as the other books redacted by Ezra were presented by the court of Josiah in Judah after the exile.

Yes, the Jews wrote the laws down, and the laws were made to be compatible with the Jewish people. The laws were lost at times and later rediscovered.

This is because the concept of heaven and hell had not been invented yet in ancient Jewish culture. The idea of 'living on" was thought of as one's legacy, hence the importance of inheritance and blessings of the firstborn sons.

Exactly. The Bible does not use heaven as an incentive.

Apologetics 101. God didn't kill people, people killed themselves using god as the weapon. Even though god loved all of those people as much as he loves you. It was just a different time back then. But god never changes.

---

God killed off the antediluvian society because it simply refused to accept him, its creator. The gift of life they received from him was revoked.
The times change with the creation of new covenants made with different people, but the maker of the covenant does not change. What God does does not affect who he is.

The whole point of religion, all religion, is to make sense of weird, bad shit happening around them in the natural world. Human tendency is pattern seeking and we tend to anthropomorphize what we don't understand. The whole point of christianity is to legitimize the horrible things that happen in a natural world and give hope to those that will believe. It's been the tendency of mankind to do this from the onset of sentience, hence a billion different religions. Christianity had the help of Rome.

A true anthropomorphization would require giving a face to the thing being anthropomorphized. Judeo-Christian theism refuses to do this, despite the prevalence of the concept of gods living in nature elements and in statues.
Christianity got its help from Rome after receiving the opposite for 300 years. Christianity owes its prevalence to its Christians.

We are yet to find good evidence of the crucifixion of a significant christ ever happening.

Are you asserting Christ never existed? There are atheists who would say otherwise.

---

God's incredibly specific laws of the OT were meant to distinguish the Jews as God's people who preserved God's law in a world that had forgotten it. But these laws were only part of the formula. In the OT, the physical was used to indicate the spiritual, but in the NT, Christ showed the full path to salvation was based on the spiritual.

What? So god used his laws to choose a group of people and abandon the rest of the world. Then he tricked them into following the laws, when actually, if only they had lived till christ came, they'd find the true path to salvation had nothing to do with all those laws?

Is having a Torah a special privilege? I thought morals were evolutionary.
The rituals of the Jewish law were useless in themselves. It was the symbolism and the spirit in which the rituals were performed that they had true power. The physical stuff was easy to do and hard to forget, and helped a people who didn't know the true way follow it.

you don't know what equality means either do you? Yea, one thing your god is quite consistent about is never teaching his people much. Oh, it was hard to survive in the desert, let's resort to the ways you already know. oh, you think your women are worth less, ok i don't know how to explain to you, so let's play along with that as well. If god was as smart as all you people put it, you'd think he'll teach them something useful. Not like he's above meddling with their "fates".

The Jews didn't have derogatory views of women and God didn't encourage any. Women couldn't live alone for very physical reasons, and the Jewish laws were adapted to fit this common practice. Men protected women, and the laws recognized that.

Yea i know what you mean, sometimes when i'm writing and nothing sounds right, i'd delete the entire thing but the title. i'm preserving it you see, not starting over. The title's my vessel.

The subject of your essay did not change because you thought the title was perfectly fine. The essay lives on in your title, and simply needs to start over through the title, which you accepted as meeting your standards.

Nope, that's not bad either. You were the one who said hate is sin, sin is ungodly. that is word for word.

Hate needs to be leveled at actions, not at people. If you hate someone for who they are and not for what they do, the hate is sinful.

[evenheathen]

Are you asserting Christ never existed? There are atheists who would say otherwise.

My exact words were "a significant christ". And plenty of atheists assert a lot of things with which I would disagree.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Hate needs to be leveled at actions, not at people. If you hate someone for who they are and not for what they do, the hate is sinful.

Proverbs 6:16-19 - "These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren."

Malachi 1:3 - "And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness."

Romans 9:13 - "As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."

Psalm 11:5 - "The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth."

[Consilius]

Goad hates the witness conditionally: because he is a liar. His lying is the variable that must be present for the hate to exist.
Same with the troublemaker (your second example).
"Esau" is being used to refer to both him and his descendants, the Edomites. Esau did not own mountains in his Genesis account. The hate exists because Esau forfeited his birthright, his spiritual responsibility to his family. The Edomites followed suit and fought against Israel, God's people.
God hates those who choose violence simply because they chose violence. God does not hate a specific group of violent people, but no matter who you are, if you are a violent person, you will be hated on the account of your violence.
God hates sin and those who follow it because sin is contrary to his existence. If you repent of sin, you are now out of range of the hate that is still being levelled at sin.
If you hate someone because they offended you, you are doing wrong because you are not in the position to judge him for what he did. You should also not hold a grudge, because you are levelling your hate at the person now that the sin has long passed. All you have to do is blantantly love your offender.

---

Are you asserting Christ never existed? There are atheists who would say otherwise.

My exact words were "a significant christ". And plenty of atheists assert a lot of things with which I would disagree.

What is a "significant Christ"?

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Goad hates the witness conditionally: because he is a liar. His lying is the variable that must be present for the hate to exist.
Same with the troublemaker (your second example).
"Esau" is being used to refer to both him and his descendants, the Edomites. Esau did not own mountains in his Genesis account. The hate exists because Esau forfeited his birthright, his spiritual responsibility to his family. The Edomites followed suit and fought against Israel, God's people.
God hates those who choose violence simply because they chose violence. God does not hate a specific group of violent people, but no matter who you are, if you are a violent person, you will be hated on the account of your violence.

Hate needs to be leveled at actions, not at people. If you hate someone for who they are and not for what they do, the hate is sinful.

I was attempting to do this entire reply with just your own quotes. but i can't help but point out that you assume that god doesn't hate the troublemaker forever. I have a bible verse that says otherwise, it also responds to your next point, so i'll post it below.

---

God hates sin and those who follow it because sin is contrary to his existence. If you repent of sin, you are now out of range of the hate that is still being levelled at sin.

Hebrews 10: 26 For if we deliberately continue to sin after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but only the terrifying prospect of Judgment, or raging fire that will consume the enemies.

If you hate someone because they offended you, you are doing wrong because you are not in the position to judge him for what he did. You should also not hold a grudge, because you are levelling your hate at the person now that the sin has long passed. All you have to do is blantantly love your offender.

I'm not sure if you're talking to me now, or if you're just saying this is how it works for everyone, or if you're saying this is how it works according to your interpretation of the bible. The only one that's relevant is the 3rd option, but i'm not sure what you're responding to or if you're bringing up a new point or ...?

[Ryantology]

God hates those who choose violence simply because they chose violence. God does not hate a specific group of violent people, but no matter who you are, if you are a violent person, you will be hated on the account of your violence.

God, being omnipotent and omniscient, is capable of solving any imaginable problem without using even a hint of violence both in the sense that he can invent any solution and apply it flawlessly without any possibility of being hindered in any way. Because this is necessarily true, it is also necessarily true that God chooses violence simply because he chooses violence, as there can be no other reason why he would. If this is not true, then his omnipotence and omniscience are both also untrue.

If we agree that human life is sacred, we agree that ending a life without necessity (or consent on the part of the victim) is evil. This means that God is evil. The only way to avoid this is to make a completely unjustified special exception for God, whose rules of right and wrong do not seem to apply to his own behavior.

Also, if you hate a person because they did something you had complete foreknowledge of and total power (plus complete reluctance) to prevent, if this is, as many Christians insist, all a part of your master plan, your hate is unjustified, because it is your fault as much as it is the perpetrator's. Free will does not abrogate ultimate responsibility.

[NoahsFarce]

I actually decided that I needed to revise my answer and put it in a previous post:
"God CAN do all these things. The reason he doesn't and never will is because it is contradictory to his nature, and, as God, his nature will remain constant because he wills to keep it that way. God WILL NOT make a rock he can't lift because he is all-powerful. God WILL NOT cease to exist because he promises to be with his people, and he WILL NOT lie because he is truth. God WILL NOT change, nor is he under the inclination to do so, because he [isn't human]. That fact in itself will not change, in the same way two plus two will not change to five under any circumstances."

God has the physical capability to sin. The reason this sounds absurd is because we know the Christian God to NOT sin. That is because his omnibenevolent nature does not change. God refuses to change because of the responsibility he has to humanity not to change because he is their God.
In the same way, God WILL NOT clone himself because the universe is under his control alone, and needs to remain so so that only the events he ordains occur because of the responsibility he has to the created universe.

First of all, I would like to applaud you for revising your answer. It shows that you are willing to rethink a position when faced with enough of a challenge.

Now, going with the rock theme...

So God can technically create a rock he cannot life. So let's say he does create one. Forget about reasons again. Let's just say he did it. What becomes of God in this scenario?

On one hand, his omnipotence allows him to create a rock he cannot lift. On the other hand, if the rock is immovable by God himself, he was never omnipotent to begin with even though he created it. This is paradoxical. It is a fallacy in the idea of omnipotence. I am telling you, omnipotence is illogical. No such thing can exist.