Christians Unite

[GrandizerII]

God does have a limitation. He admits it in his own book.

Judges 1:19, King James


Whoops! Even omnipotent gods have their kleenex. I mean kryptonite.

You don't even know what the Books of judges is about do you?

I can't address what the passage states so I will respond with a condescending question that has nothing to do with the point being made.

[MilesAbbott81]

God does have a limitation. He admits it in his own book.

Judges 1:19, King James

And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

Whoops! Even omnipotent gods have their kleenex. I mean kryptonite.

This is a classic example of abusing the limitations imposed by the language barrier to serve your own argument.

For one, if I simply wanted to try to fry you on a technicality of the language, I could say that "he" doesn't even refer to the Lord, but to Judah. It very well might, of course, but when the language is ambiguous, we're most likely better served by Young's Literal Translation. It's not easy to read, but it does excise all assumption from the equation, the primary component that has corrupted so many translations. Here it is:

"...and Jehovah is with Judah, and he occupieth the hill-country, but not to dispossess the inhabitants of the valley, for they have chariots of iron."

Now we know that, if "he" refers to the Lord, that it wasn't because He couldn't, but because they had chariots of iron.

You're trying to make the case that the Lord was literally there swinging a sword alongside the troops. There are plenty of instances in the Bible, and this happens to be one of them (much like the entire conquest of Canaan, excluding perhaps the siege of Jericho), where God performs no overt miracles. This is because He demanded faith, at least to an extent, from His people. It's a theme that is inherent throughout the entire book from Abraham forward.

Plus, the Israelites not driving everyone out instantly and completely was foretold:

Exodus 23:29-30
I will not drive them out before you in a single year, that the land may not become desolate and the beasts of the field become too numerous for you. 30"I will drive them out before you little by little, until you become fruitful and take possession of the land.…

The bottom line is, if God wanted them to take the land, He would've made it happen.

[Foxaèr]

The bottom line is, if God wanted them to take the land, He would've made it happen.

That is quite a convenient, lame, apologist excuse I tire of reading all the time.

Your god seems pretty lazy to repeatedly ignore humanity when it needs him most. Makes it seem as though he is not even there until it is convenient for the theist to imagine him there by claiming natural occurrences or coincidences as the supernatural work of god.

[robvalue]

If God wants someone to win a battle, they win a battle.

This verse makes it pretty clear that even though God wanted them to be winning that day, iron chariots were an obstacle to that.

Of course, this is probably all a metaphor for how amazing God is at golf or something.

Look, why would it even mention chariots of iron if it actually meant "God was with them that day, but he didn't want them to win this one battle, so they didn't."

At best you have a terrible writer who throws in irrelevancies to try and deceive the reader. Great.

[MilesAbbott81]

That is quite a convenient, lame, apologist excuse I tire of reading all the time.

Your god seems pretty lazy to repeatedly ignore humanity when it needs him most. Makes it seem as though he is not even there until it is convenient for the theist to imagine him there by claiming natural occurrences or coincidences as the supernatural work of god.

You speak as though that is all I said. Why don't you read the supporting ideas that back up the claim and address those?

He isn't lazy if the entire purpose is to teach us the difference between good and evil. Everyone must suffer at some point to learn this important lesson; it is the primary purpose of our existence as flesh and blood.

When all is accomplished, "He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." Revelation 21:4

---

If God wants someone to win a battle, they win a battle.

This verse makes it pretty clear that even though God wanted them to be winning that day, iron chariots were an obstacle to that.

Of course, this is probably all a metaphor for how amazing God is at golf or something.

Look, why would it even mention chariots of iron if it actually meant "God was with them that day, but he didn't want them to win this one battle, so they didn't."

At best you have a terrible writer who throws in irrelevancies to try and deceive the reader. Great.

Iron chariots did indeed impose an obstacle - it was also God's way of putting up stop signs and saying "go no further, I've not given you this land yet."

And actually, if you look at the Young's Literal Translation, it isn't even apparent that a battle was fought. It may have been, and there were certainly losses during the conquest, but if the writers were trying to make the case that God was winning these battles for them supernaturally, then they were idiotic to include anything but astounding victories, and beyond idiotic to mention any losses.

[Norman Humann]

You speak as though that is all I said. Why don't you read the supporting ideas that back up the claim and address those?

Meeep!

Ideas don't support claims. Evidence does. Next!

[Foxaèr]

He isn't lazy if the entire purpose is to teach us the difference between good and evil.

Faith rooted in myth is not needed for that. If one cannot reasonably discern the difference between what is right or wrong without the erroneous guidance of a primitive, outdated fiction novel, then the individual lacks empathy.

Anyone who believes that the Bible offers the best guidance we have on questions of morality has some very strange ideas about either guidance or morality. ~ Sam Harris, Letters to a Christian Nation

[robvalue]

OK, so we can just interpret the bible to mean anything we want.

40,000 schisms pretty much makes that case for me.

[MilesAbbott81]

You speak as though that is all I said. Why don't you read the supporting ideas that back up the claim and address those?

Meeep!

Ideas don't support claims. Evidence does. Next!

Not when we're talking about Christianity and things specific to the Bible. It's quite ridiculous to demand evidence when debating the meaning of some particular Scripture. What are we supposed to do, conjure the authors in a seance and ask them? That's about the only test I can possibly think of that could be devised.

In this case, the evidence lies within the book itself.

[FatAndFaithless]

Meeep!

Ideas don't support claims. Evidence does. Next!

Not when we're talking about Christianity and things specific to the Bible.

Gee..it's almost as if you're pleading for a certain criteria that isn't applied to anything else... a special criteria even... special pleading maybe...