Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:31-45|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Problems with the Christian God

Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2013 10:37:57 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/21/2013 10:31:19 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/21/2013 10:23:23 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 3/21/2013 10:15:44 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/21/2013 10:08:51 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
My biggest problem

1 Samuel 15:3

Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and a$$.

I often hear that it was better for the children to die because they would goto heaven. I can't believe someone would state such thing! When is there a good reason to kill a baby? If you take his route, what's immoral about murdering the babies of secular parents? Also, is abortion wrong?:

Going by the Bible, Amalek was a giant, his people were giants, God didnt want giants because it would tant the Messiah bloodline, samething for the flood. They killed them to rid that bloodline and to rid them you must kill them all. Thisnis the reason to kill babies. Abortion is muder and thereofre wrong. If we have to talk about a baby or about aborting it then that simply shows it exist.

Apologia.for genocide.... smh:
Read your Bible? Sons of God and daughters of men, giants. It was not genecide, it was a corrupt bloodline to begin with they were not intended. They were children of angels throughout of heaven. Having pity on them, SMH.

What verse is it? And Haman was a descendant of Agag (supposedly)

http://en.wikipedia.org...
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
popculturepooka
Posts: 8,150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2013 10:56:16 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/21/2013 10:31:19 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/21/2013 10:23:23 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 3/21/2013 10:15:44 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/21/2013 10:08:51 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
My biggest problem

1 Samuel 15:3

Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and a$$

I often hear that it was better for the children to die because they would goto heaven. I can't believe someone would state such thing! When is there a good reason to kill a baby? If you take his route, what's immoral about murdering the babies of secular parents? Also, is abortion wrong?:

Going by the Bible, Amalek was a giant, his people were giants, God didnt want giants because it would tant the Messiah bloodline, samething for the flood. They killed them to rid that bloodline and to rid them you must kill them all. Thisnis the reason to kill babies. Abortion is muder and thereofre wrong. If we have to talk about a baby or about aborting it then that simply shows it exist.

Apologia.for genocide.... smh:

Read your Bible? Sons of God and daughters of men, giants. It was not genecide, it was a corrupt bloodline to begin with they were not intended. They were children of angels throughout of heaven. Having pity on them, SMH.

Please, please, PLEASE, debate me on your apologia for genocide. We can use either this instance or the one involving the amalekites. I did a debate on biblical inerrancy on this subject here:

http://www.debate.org...

Want to do a similar one?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2013 11:08:12 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/21/2013 10:37:57 AM, Magic8000 wrote:

What verse is it? And Haman was a descendant of Agag (supposedly)

http://en.wikipedia.org...:

Amalek kinda sounds like Molech(silent A).
The Amalekites were a people mentioned a number of times in the book of Genesis, and considered to be Amalek's descendents. In the chant of Balaam at Numbers, 24:20, Amalek was called the 'first of the nations', attesting to high antiquity. Eliphaz, was the first-born son of Esau by his wife Adah. He had six sons, one of whom was Amalek, born to his concubine Timna, who was the ancestral enemy of the Israelite people. Esau is the progenitor of the Edomites and the twin brother of Jacob, the patriarch of the Israelites. At Genesis 36:16, Amalek is described as the "chief of Amalek", and thus his name can be construed to refer to a clan or a territory over which he ruled. Josephus calls him a 'bastard', though in a derogative sense. A late extra-Biblical tradition, recorded by Nachmanides, maintains that the Amalekites were not descended from the grandson of Esau but from a man named Amalek, from whom the grandson took his name. An eponymous ancestor of the Amalekites is also mentioned in Old Arabian poetry.According to Muslim historians such as Ibn Khaldun and Ali ibn al-Athir, Amalek is a name given to the Amorites and the Canaanites.

The name is often interpreted as "dweller in the valley", and occasionally as "war-like," "people of prey", "cave-men" In some rabbinical interpretations, Amalek is etymologised as a people am, who lick blood, but most specialists regard the origin to be unknown.

In Arabic, the corresponding term for the Biblical Amalek is Imlīq, whose descendants were early residents of the aram at Mecca, later supplanted by the Banu Jurhum, and formed one of the first tribes of ancient Arabia to speak Arabic.

In Arabic, Imlik is the singular of giant, and the plural is suggesting the sons of this tribe were known for being unusually tall.

Of the 613 mitzvot (commandments) followed by Orthodox Jews, three refer to the Amalek: to remember what the Amalekites did to Jews, not to forget what the Amalekites did to Jews, and to destroy the Amalekites utterly. The rabbis derived these from Deuteronomy 25:17"18, Exodus 17:14 and 1 Sam. 15:3. Rashi explains the third commandment:
From man unto woman, from infant unto suckling, from ox unto sheep, so that the name of Amalek not be mentioned even with reference to an animal by saying "This animal belonged to Amalek"..
http://en.wikipedia.org...
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2013 11:08:59 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/21/2013 10:31:19 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/21/2013 10:23:23 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 3/21/2013 10:15:44 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/21/2013 10:08:51 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
My biggest problem

1 Samuel 15:3

Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and a$$.

I often hear that it was better for the children to die because they would goto heaven. I can't believe someone would state such thing! When is there a good reason to kill a baby? If you take his route, what's immoral about murdering the babies of secular parents? Also, is abortion wrong?:

Going by the Bible, Amalek was a giant, his people were giants, God didnt want giants because it would tant the Messiah bloodline, samething for the flood. They killed them to rid that bloodline and to rid them you must kill them all. Thisnis the reason to kill babies. Abortion is muder and thereofre wrong. If we have to talk about a baby or about aborting it then that simply shows it exist.

Apologia.for genocide.... smh:
Read your Bible? Sons of God and daughters of men, giants. It was not genecide, it was a corrupt bloodline to begin with they were not intended. They were children of angels throughout of heaven. Having pity on them, SMH.

Let me rephrase it. The murdering of infants was done to stop the bloodline, but Haman is descended from Agag
http://en.wikipedia.org...

The line didn't stop, and it didn't hurt the bloodline. Even if the adults needed to be killed, they could've raised the infants.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2013 11:12:37 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/21/2013 10:56:16 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 3/21/2013 10:31:19 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/21/2013 10:23:23 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 3/21/2013 10:15:44 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/21/2013 10:08:51 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
My biggest problem

1 Samuel 15:3

Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and a$$

I often hear that it was better for the children to die because they would goto heaven. I can't believe someone would state such thing! When is there a good reason to kill a baby? If you take his route, what's immoral about murdering the babies of secular parents? Also, is abortion wrong?:

Going by the Bible, Amalek was a giant, his people were giants, God didnt want giants because it would tant the Messiah bloodline, samething for the flood. They killed them to rid that bloodline and to rid them you must kill them all. Thisnis the reason to kill babies. Abortion is muder and thereofre wrong. If we have to talk about a baby or about aborting it then that simply shows it exist.

Apologia.for genocide.... smh:

Read your Bible? Sons of God and daughters of men, giants. It was not genecide, it was a corrupt bloodline to begin with they were not intended. They were children of angels throughout of heaven. Having pity on them, SMH.


Please, please, PLEASE, debate me on your apologia for genocide. We can use either this instance or the one involving the amalekites. I did a debate on biblical inerrancy on this subject here:

http://www.debate.org...

Want to do a similar one?:

Please man, the Bible tells you when the Israelites came upon the promised land that giant peoples were there. The name Amalek in Arabic means giant or very tall. There are legends in Arabic about these people.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2013 11:14:40 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/21/2013 11:08:12 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/21/2013 10:37:57 AM, Magic8000 wrote:

What verse is it? And Haman was a descendant of Agag (supposedly)

http://en.wikipedia.org...:

Amalek kinda sounds like Molech(silent A).
The Amalekites were a people mentioned a number of times in the book of Genesis, and considered to be Amalek's descendents. In the chant of Balaam at Numbers, 24:20, Amalek was called the 'first of the nations', attesting to high antiquity. Eliphaz, was the first-born son of Esau by his wife Adah. He had six sons, one of whom was Amalek, born to his concubine Timna, who was the ancestral enemy of the Israelite people. Esau is the progenitor of the Edomites and the twin brother of Jacob, the patriarch of the Israelites. At Genesis 36:16, Amalek is described as the "chief of Amalek", and thus his name can be construed to refer to a clan or a territory over which he ruled. Josephus calls him a 'bastard', though in a derogative sense. A late extra-Biblical tradition, recorded by Nachmanides, maintains that the Amalekites were not descended from the grandson of Esau but from a man named Amalek, from whom the grandson took his name. An eponymous ancestor of the Amalekites is also mentioned in Old Arabian poetry.According to Muslim historians such as Ibn Khaldun and Ali ibn al-Athir, Amalek is a name given to the Amorites and the Canaanites.

The name is often interpreted as "dweller in the valley", and occasionally as "war-like," "people of prey", "cave-men" In some rabbinical interpretations, Amalek is etymologised as a people am, who lick blood, but most specialists regard the origin to be unknown.

In Arabic, the corresponding term for the Biblical Amalek is Imlīq, whose descendants were early residents of the aram at Mecca, later supplanted by the Banu Jurhum, and formed one of the first tribes of ancient Arabia to speak Arabic.

In Arabic, Imlik is the singular of giant, and the plural is suggesting the sons of this tribe were known for being unusually tall.

Of the 613 mitzvot (commandments) followed by Orthodox Jews, three refer to the Amalek: to remember what the Amalekites did to Jews, not to forget what the Amalekites did to Jews, and to destroy the Amalekites utterly. The rabbis derived these from Deuteronomy 25:17"18, Exodus 17:14 and 1 Sam. 15:3. Rashi explains the third commandment:
From man unto woman, from infant unto suckling, from ox unto sheep, so that the name of Amalek not be mentioned even with reference to an animal by saying "This animal belonged to Amalek"..
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Yes

"In Arabic, Imlik (Arabic:) is the singular of giant, and the plural is suggesting the sons of this tribe were known for being unusually tall.[citation needed]"
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
popculturepooka
Posts: 8,150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2013 11:16:19 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/21/2013 11:12:37 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/21/2013 10:56:16 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 3/21/2013 10:31:19 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/21/2013 10:23:23 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 3/21/2013 10:15:44 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/21/2013 10:08:51 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
My biggest problem

1 Samuel 15:3

Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and a$$

I often hear that it was better for the children to die because they would goto heaven. I can't believe someone would state such thing! When is there a good reason to kill a baby? If you take his route, what's immoral about murdering the babies of secular parents? Also, is abortion wrong?:

Going by the Bible, Amalek was a giant, his people were giants, God didnt want giants because it would tant the Messiah bloodline, samething for the flood. They killed them to rid that bloodline and to rid them you must kill them all. Thisnis the reason to kill babies. Abortion is muder and thereofre wrong. If we have to talk about a baby or about aborting it then that simply shows it exist.

Apologia.for genocide.... smh:

Read your Bible? Sons of God and daughters of men, giants. It was not genecide, it was a corrupt bloodline to begin with they were not intended. They were children of angels throughout of heaven. Having pity on them, SMH.


Please, please, PLEASE, debate me on your apologia for genocide. We can use either this instance or the one involving the amalekites. I did a debate on biblical inerrancy on this subject here:

http://www.debate.org...

Want to do a similar one?:

Please man, the Bible tells you when the Israelites came upon the promised land that giant peoples were there. The name Amalek in Arabic means giant or very tall. There are legends in Arabic about these people.

Guess that means no?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2013 11:18:22 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/21/2013 11:16:19 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 3/21/2013 11:12:37 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/21/2013 10:56:16 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 3/21/2013 10:31:19 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/21/2013 10:23:23 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 3/21/2013 10:15:44 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/21/2013 10:08:51 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
My biggest problem

1 Samuel 15:3

Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and a$$

I often hear that it was better for the children to die because they would goto heaven. I can't believe someone would state such thing! When is there a good reason to kill a baby? If you take his route, what's immoral about murdering the babies of secular parents? Also, is abortion wrong?:

Going by the Bible, Amalek was a giant, his people were giants, God didnt want giants because it would tant the Messiah bloodline, samething for the flood. They killed them to rid that bloodline and to rid them you must kill them all. Thisnis the reason to kill babies. Abortion is muder and thereofre wrong. If we have to talk about a baby or about aborting it then that simply shows it exist.

Apologia.for genocide.... smh:

Read your Bible? Sons of God and daughters of men, giants. It was not genecide, it was a corrupt bloodline to begin with they were not intended. They were children of angels throughout of heaven. Having pity on them, SMH.


Please, please, PLEASE, debate me on your apologia for genocide. We can use either this instance or the one involving the amalekites. I did a debate on biblical inerrancy on this subject here:

http://www.debate.org...

Want to do a similar one?:

Please man, the Bible tells you when the Israelites came upon the promised land that giant peoples were there. The name Amalek in Arabic means giant or very tall. There are legends in Arabic about these people.

Guess that means no?:
I will but after I finish a few I have going. When I do and I see you I will or you see me.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2013 3:01:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/21/2013 11:08:12 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/21/2013 10:37:57 AM, Magic8000 wrote:

What verse is it? And Haman was a descendant of Agag (supposedly)

http://en.wikipedia.org...:

Amalek kinda sounds like Molech(silent A).
The Amalekites were a people mentioned a number of times in the book of Genesis, and considered to be Amalek's descendents. In the chant of Balaam at Numbers, 24:20, Amalek was called the 'first of the nations', attesting to high antiquity. Eliphaz, was the first-born son of Esau by his wife Adah. He had six sons, one of whom was Amalek, born to his concubine Timna, who was the ancestral enemy of the Israelite people. Esau is the progenitor of the Edomites and the twin brother of Jacob, the patriarch of the Israelites. At Genesis 36:16, Amalek is described as the "chief of Amalek", and thus his name can be construed to refer to a clan or a territory over which he ruled. Josephus calls him a 'bastard', though in a derogative sense. A late extra-Biblical tradition, recorded by Nachmanides, maintains that the Amalekites were not descended from the grandson of Esau but from a man named Amalek, from whom the grandson took his name. An eponymous ancestor of the Amalekites is also mentioned in Old Arabian poetry.According to Muslim historians such as Ibn Khaldun and Ali ibn al-Athir, Amalek is a name given to the Amorites and the Canaanites.

The name is often interpreted as "dweller in the valley", and occasionally as "war-like," "people of prey", "cave-men" In some rabbinical interpretations, Amalek is etymologised as a people am, who lick blood, but most specialists regard the origin to be unknown.

In Arabic, the corresponding term for the Biblical Amalek is Imlīq, whose descendants were early residents of the aram at Mecca, later supplanted by the Banu Jurhum, and formed one of the first tribes of ancient Arabia to speak Arabic.

In Arabic, Imlik is the singular of giant, and the plural is suggesting the sons of this tribe were known for being unusually tall.

Of the 613 mitzvot (commandments) followed by Orthodox Jews, three refer to the Amalek: to remember what the Amalekites did to Jews, not to forget what the Amalekites did to Jews, and to destroy the Amalekites utterly. The rabbis derived these from Deuteronomy 25:17"18, Exodus 17:14 and 1 Sam. 15:3. Rashi explains the third commandment:
From man unto woman, from infant unto suckling, from ox unto sheep, so that the name of Amalek not be mentioned even with reference to an animal by saying "This animal belonged to Amalek"..
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Other than the name amalek, there's really nothing I can find that says they were giants. Weren't all the giants killed in the flood anyway?
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2013 5:32:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/21/2013 8:26:17 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/21/2013 7:53:15 AM, muzebreak wrote:

Yes or no; does free will exist?:
Free-will does exist.

Yes or no only please.

Yes or no; is it possible for someone to use their free will to make only good

Well stars also represent angels so I think they are pretty much tied.

Couldn't god have made something else to represent angels? Something that didn't deceive us?

Why is it required for a galactic year, and what is a galactic season?:
I have no idea what it is, time wise. Like we are under time clock through our universe, there is a greater time clock beyond ours.

What does this mean, and why do you think stars are required for a galactic season, if you don't even know what it is?

Also, you didn't tell me why star light needed to be here for a galactic year.


No, I say evolve or god. You make an indeterminate statement.:
Very good.

I don't know why, but ok.

Purposeful deciet because science and man chooses to believe that things oughta look or be a certain way when even you have to admit we are youngins here. Kinda sounds like kids too.

Did you just admit that it is put there to deceive?:
No.

Then which is it; do you believe we evolved, do you believe god deceived us, or did you come up with another possibility p?



Why would he make them as such?:
I'm guessing because thats what was needed to form creation the way He wanted.

That's a non answer. Why did he want it formed that way?




So an evil person is someone who does not follow those two standards?:
I didn't say that. I doubt many has ever stood up to those standards. We all have a log in our eye.

Irena sendler was a woman who lived in Warsaw. When the Nazis invaded, she smuggled around 2500 Jewish children past the nazi borders, onto freedom. She kept the names of the children, buried in her back yard. She was caught by the nazis, tortured, and sentenced to death. She managed to evade her death sentence, and survive the war. After the war she spent many years, and much money, to reunite as many children as she could with their parents. If she did not follow the criteria you gave for getting into heaven, do you believe she would still be allowed in?



Wait do not people change beliefs or go opposite what they have been raised?

Yes, yes they do. But some people don't have that oppurtunity. They know nothing but the small society or tribe that they grew up in.:
I dont not know how that works.

But surely god made provisions laid out in his book?
Why would he give clear cut standards for who gets in, and who doesn't. Then forget to say that those who don't know these standards, are exempt?



Ok, so you agree that hell is eternal. What is the justification for infinite punishment for finite crime?:
Because your finite life shows your real self

That's not necessarily true. Some people are forced to do horrible things. What about child soldiers in Somalia, who are forced into either fighting or having their entire family slaughtered in front of them? Is it their real self who murders people, or is it simply a forced shell of a person?

Or what about those who are forced into the sex trade from a very young age, some grow to accept the hell they are in. And others even grow to enjoy it. They force this persona onto themselves, to deal with the situation they are in, because it is the only thing keeping them sane. There real self has no chance to show. What about these people?

and that self decides if you are worthy of God's kingdom.




Question both.

And what if in questioning both, you found nothing wrong with this fact? It was innerant. It was impossible to be wrong. Literally impossible. What would you do then?


So, the bible does not say that the earth is young?:
Yes I just said yes, six days of creation no doubt describes our 6 days.

Let me rephrase that. Does the bible say the age of the earth, and if so where?


Do you understand the premise of ice core dating?:
Not that much.

So you are automatically dismissing something without understanding it?


Yes, and god knew they wouldn't. But why punish all perceding humanity for something that he knew was going to happen, and not only allowed but made come to fruition?:
He made it happen? How?


Because God wants you to choose Him and His Word freely. He must allow you to choose against Him or it is not really a real choice. This argument is like a kid who blames others for doing wrong when they were told not too. Would that excuse fly with you?

Ok, let's use something like your analogy. Lets say I locked a kid in a room with a loaded gun. I knew he would shoot himself, and I had the option to not put the gun there, or put him in a room with no gun. But I put him in the room with the loaded gun, in full knowledge of what he would do. Who is to blame?


How is God punishing us? Dont we punish ourselves?

Wasn't original sin bestowed upon all mankind as punishment?:
Wasn't eve and all other women after her punished with things like the pain of childbirth? Haven't you read the biblical account of Adam and Eve?:
God did not really bestow sin on us, we sinned while with Him, on our own free will.

I didn't. Adam and Eve did. How's that my fault?

Adam and Eve where in eternity(Eden), no death, but when they sinned they could not be in God's eternity any longer and they were submitted to flesh which dies. Did not God say thou shalt die?

Yes, but he still specifically punished eve with the pains of childbirth.


But we have documents that have not been translated, and re translated, and translated again, that are from the same time period. We also have the originals of some such documents. What is it about the bible, that makes it supercede these documents, that have been better preserved?:
95% of historians would disagree, the Bible is the most well preserved document.

Give me an example of some secular historian who would say this.:
http://www.leaderu.com...
http://www.susancanthony.com...
http://www.equip.org...

I explicitly asked for secular historians who would say that the bible is the most well preserved documents. These historians are neither secular, nor expressing that opinion.

Setting the Bible aside for a moment, by far the best-attested document of Graeco-Roman times was Homer's Illiad. http://life.liegeman.org...


I would search other Bibles. If it came down too no matter what it shows the Bible wrong then I would have to pray about that long and hard. Though I believe the Bible is error free, it is God that I believe.

What would praying do?


They are exact opposites. Either he is merciful to forgive a criminal his crimes, or he will bestow upon him ultimate justice. Which one is it? You can't have both.:
Yes you can. Is it not very merciful to forgive a convict many times and allowing him to go

It is indeed merciful, but it is the exact opposite of being just.

and then on your bad day when judgement is in your mind and he sees you there he gives you the max, Wasn't he just and merciful

No, he was merciful then just. But he wasn't supremely either.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 7:09:15 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/21/2013 3:01:49 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 3/21/2013 11:08:12 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/21/2013 10:37:57 AM, Magic8000 wrote:

What verse is it? And Haman was a descendant of Agag (supposedly)

http://en.wikipedia.org...:

Amalek kinda sounds like Molech(silent A).
The Amalekites were a people mentioned a number of times in the book of Genesis, and considered to be Amalek's descendents. In the chant of Balaam at Numbers, 24:20, Amalek was called the 'first of the nations', attesting to high antiquity. Eliphaz, was the first-born son of Esau by his wife Adah. He had six sons, one of whom was Amalek, born to his concubine Timna, who was the ancestral enemy of the Israelite people. Esau is the progenitor of the Edomites and the twin brother of Jacob, the patriarch of the Israelites. At Genesis 36:16, Amalek is described as the "chief of Amalek", and thus his name can be construed to refer to a clan or a territory over which he ruled. Josephus calls him a 'bastard', though in a derogative sense. A late extra-Biblical tradition, recorded by Nachmanides, maintains that the Amalekites were not descended from the grandson of Esau but from a man named Amalek, from whom the grandson took his name. An eponymous ancestor of the Amalekites is also mentioned in Old Arabian poetry.According to Muslim historians such as Ibn Khaldun and Ali ibn al-Athir, Amalek is a name given to the Amorites and the Canaanites.

The name is often interpreted as "dweller in the valley", and occasionally as "war-like," "people of prey", "cave-men" In some rabbinical interpretations, Amalek is etymologised as a people am, who lick blood, but most specialists regard the origin to be unknown.

In Arabic, the corresponding term for the Biblical Amalek is Imlīq, whose descendants were early residents of the aram at Mecca, later supplanted by the Banu Jurhum, and formed one of the first tribes of ancient Arabia to speak Arabic.

In Arabic, Imlik is the singular of giant, and the plural is suggesting the sons of this tribe were known for being unusually tall.

Of the 613 mitzvot (commandments) followed by Orthodox Jews, three refer to the Amalek: to remember what the Amalekites did to Jews, not to forget what the Amalekites did to Jews, and to destroy the Amalekites utterly. The rabbis derived these from Deuteronomy 25:17"18, Exodus 17:14 and 1 Sam. 15:3. Rashi explains the third commandment:
From man unto woman, from infant unto suckling, from ox unto sheep, so that the name of Amalek not be mentioned even with reference to an animal by saying "This animal belonged to Amalek"..
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Other than the name amalek, there's really nothing I can find that says they were giants. Weren't all the giants killed in the flood anyway?:
No, read Genesis 6. It says that were after the flood. Also it is clear they we still around because of David and Goliath. All the people in Canaan had some kind of giant tribes within them. From Gen-Judges there are giants all through Canaan.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 7:37:35 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/21/2013 5:32:59 PM, muzebreak wrote:

Yes or no; is it possible for someone to use their free will to make only good:
It is possible but then again if they could be like Jesus and there would be no need for Jesus.

Well stars also represent angels so I think they are pretty much tied.

Couldn't god have made something else to represent angels? Something that didn't deceive us?:
Not everyone finds it deceiving. Its more hard to understand by human understanding then deceiving.

What does this mean, and why do you think stars are required for a galactic season, if you don't even know what it is?:
Because we use time to plan things. It seems reasonable to think God set time for a plan.

Also, you didn't tell me why star light needed to be here for a galactic year.:
I never said it did.


Then which is it; do you believe we evolved, do you believe god deceived us, or did you come up with another possibility p?:
Sure God created us with no deception, you have no relationship with God so you are confused and blame God that you are and say He is deceiving. In reality there is reason things are the way they are and we are far less knowing to understand that without God.

That's a non answer. Why did he want it formed that way?:
I am not God. You expect me to be all-knowing. That your problem you think you should know everything.

Irena sendler was a woman who lived in Warsaw. When the Nazis invaded, she smuggled around 2500 Jewish children past the nazi borders, onto freedom. She kept the names of the children, buried in her back yard. She was caught by the nazis, tortured, and sentenced to death. She managed to evade her death sentence, and survive the war. After the war she spent many years, and much money, to reunite as many children as she could with their parents. If she did not follow the criteria you gave for getting into heaven, do you believe she would still be allowed in? :
I have no idea. I do not worry about that, thats between her and God just like everyone else. I know this if she did not reconize Jesus Christ as her savior then, No, she didnt.

But surely god made provisions laid out in his book?
Why would he give clear cut standards for who gets in, and who doesn't. Then forget to say that those who don't know these standards, are exempt?:
Why would He? Why wouldnt He deal with the people who had no idea directly? Would it not hurt the message by putting such provisions? You can only worry about your salvation directly.

That's not necessarily true. Some people are forced to do horrible things. What about child soldiers in Somalia, who are forced into either fighting or having their entire family slaughtered in front of them? Is it their real self who murders people, or is it simply a forced shell of a person?:
LOL, God knows your heart, your actions are important but your heart and conscience is most important.

Or what about those who are forced into the sex trade from a very young age, some grow to accept the hell they are in. And others even grow to enjoy it. They force this persona onto themselves, to deal with the situation they are in, because it is the only thing keeping them sane. There real self has no chance to show. What about these people?:
Again you are worrying about others. Each person has their own relationship and none are the same. Anyone who has done anything can find salvation. Even if you are doing terrible acts, your heart, your real self is inside and God knows that.

And what if in questioning both, you found nothing wrong with this fact? It was innerant. It was impossible to be wrong. Literally impossible. What would you do then?:
IDK, never had it happen yet.

Let me rephrase that. Does the bible say the age of the earth, and if so where?:
It gives 6 day creation and geneologies. You can trace all that to 6-8 thousand years. It never gives the exact date or number of years.

So you are automatically dismissing something without understanding it?:
I havent dismissed anything, it simply is not important to me, though I always have interest in learning things.


Ok, let's use something like your analogy. Lets say I locked a kid in a room with a loaded gun. I knew he would shoot himself, and I had the option to not put the gun there, or put him in a room with no gun. But I put him in the room with the loaded gun, in full knowledge of what he would do. Who is to blame?:
Not the exact same because even after man falls he can pick himself back up, the kid cant. Also you never told the kid why not to touch it and what the consequnces will be.

I didn't. Adam and Eve did. How's that my fault?:
Adam and Eve havent made you do the things you have done. You take it to far, God simply like a parent does with kids, kicked Adam and Eve out His house and they had to go into the world on their own because they chose to not listen.

Adam and Eve where in eternity(Eden), no death, but when they sinned they could not be in God's eternity any longer and they were submitted to flesh which dies. Did not God say thou shalt die?

Yes, but he still specifically punished eve with the pains of childbirth.:
Or was the a clause to keep man ongoing. Show Adam and Eve would not live forever before the fall and that multipling was needed. After they fell, they would die, so childbearing was needed. It was a punishment but more because Eve made God need to reporduce men after they died.

What would praying do?:
Praying does many things. It works things in your life and gives you comfort and a feel of anew.


They are exact opposites. Either he is merciful to forgive a criminal his crimes, or he will bestow upon him ultimate justice. Which one is it? You can't have both.:
Yes you can. Is it not very merciful to forgive a convict many times and allowing him to go

It is indeed merciful, but it is the exact opposite of being just.:
So having mercy is not also just?


and then on your bad day when judgement is in your mind and he sees you there he gives you the max, Wasn't he just and merciful

No, he was merciful then just. But he wasn't supremely either.:
I disagree.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 8:32:49 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/22/2013 7:37:35 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/21/2013 5:32:59 PM, muzebreak wrote:

Yes or no; is it possible for someone to use their free will to make only good:
It is possible but then again if they could be like Jesus and there would be no need for Jesus.

Well stars also represent angels so I think they are pretty much tied.

Couldn't god have made something else to represent angels? Something that didn't deceive us?:
Not everyone finds it deceiving. Its more hard to understand by human understanding then deceiving.

What does this mean, and why do you think stars are required for a galactic season, if you don't even know what it is?:
Because we use time to plan things. It seems reasonable to think God set time for a plan.

Also, you didn't tell me why star light needed to be here for a galactic year.:
I never said it did.


Then which is it; do you believe we evolved, do you believe god deceived us, or did you come up with another possibility p?:
Sure God created us with no deception, you have no relationship with God so you are confused and blame God that you are and say He is deceiving. In reality there is reason things are the way they are and we are far less knowing to understand that without God.

If you're going to copout of question by making ridiculous statements, and saying that I don't understand because I have no relationship with god. Then I am not going to bother conversing with you.


That's a non answer. Why did he want it formed that way?:
I am not God. You expect me to be all-knowing. That your problem you think you should know everything.

Irena sendler was a woman who lived in Warsaw. When the Nazis invaded, she smuggled around 2500 Jewish children past the nazi borders, onto freedom. She kept the names of the children, buried in her back yard. She was caught by the nazis, tortured, and sentenced to death. She managed to evade her death sentence, and survive the war. After the war she spent many years, and much money, to reunite as many children as she could with their parents. If she did not follow the criteria you gave for getting into heaven, do you believe she would still be allowed in? :
I have no idea. I do not worry about that, thats between her and God just like everyone else. I know this if she did not reconize Jesus Christ as her savior then, No, she didnt.

But surely god made provisions laid out in his book?
Why would he give clear cut standards for who gets in, and who doesn't. Then forget to say that those who don't know these standards, are exempt?:
Why would He? Why wouldnt He deal with the people who had no idea directly? Would it not hurt the message by putting such provisions? You can only worry about your salvation directly.

That's not necessarily true. Some people are forced to do horrible things. What about child soldiers in Somalia, who are forced into either fighting or having their entire family slaughtered in front of them? Is it their real self who murders people, or is it simply a forced shell of a person?:
LOL, God knows your heart, your actions are important but your heart and conscience is most important.

Or what about those who are forced into the sex trade from a very young age, some grow to accept the hell they are in. And others even grow to enjoy it. They force this persona onto themselves, to deal with the situation they are in, because it is the only thing keeping them sane. There real self has no chance to show. What about these people?:
Again you are worrying about others. Each person has their own relationship and none are the same. Anyone who has done anything can find salvation. Even if you are doing terrible acts, your heart, your real self is inside and God knows that.

And what if in questioning both, you found nothing wrong with this fact? It was innerant. It was impossible to be wrong. Literally impossible. What would you do then?:
IDK, never had it happen yet.

And here is where i convene our exchange. There is no point in me talking to someone who can't say that when confronted with a fact that disproves one of their beliefs, they will stop believing.


Let me rephrase that. Does the bible say the age of the earth, and if so where?:
It gives 6 day creation and geneologies. You can trace all that to 6-8 thousand years. It never gives the exact date or number of years.

So you are automatically dismissing something without understanding it?:
I havent dismissed anything, it simply is not important to me, though I always have interest in learning things.

Yeah, you aren't dismissing it, you're just deciding it isn't important, so you can't be bothered to deal with it.



Ok, let's use something like your analogy. Lets say I locked a kid in a room with a loaded gun. I knew he would shoot himself, and I had the option to not put the gun there, or put him in a room with no gun. But I put him in the room with the loaded gun, in full knowledge of what he would do. Who is to blame?:
Not the exact same because even after man falls he can pick himself back up, the kid cant. Also you never told the kid why not to touch it and what the consequnces will be.

I didn't. Adam and Eve did. How's that my fault?:
Adam and Eve havent made you do the things you have done. You take it to far, God simply like a parent does with kids, kicked Adam and Eve out His house and they had to go into the world on their own because they chose to not listen.

Adam and Eve where in eternity(Eden), no death, but when they sinned they could not be in God's eternity any longer and they were submitted to flesh which dies. Did not God say thou shalt die?

Yes, but he still specifically punished eve with the pains of childbirth.:
Or was the a clause to keep man ongoing. Show Adam and Eve would not live forever before the fall and that multipling was needed. After they fell, they would die, so childbearing was needed. It was a punishment but more because Eve made God need to reporduce men after they died.

What would praying do?:
Praying does many things. It works things in your life and gives you comfort and a feel of anew.


They are exact opposites. Either he is merciful to forgive a criminal his crimes, or he will bestow upon him ultimate justice. Which one is it? You can't have both.:
Yes you can. Is it not very merciful to forgive a convict many times and allowing him to go

It is indeed merciful, but it is the exact opposite of being just.:
So having mercy is not also just?


and then on your bad day when judgement is in your mind and he sees you there he gives you the max, Wasn't he just and merciful

No, he was merciful then just. But he wasn't supremely either.:
I disagree.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2013 9:00:59 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/22/2013 8:32:49 AM, muzebreak wrote:
Then which is it; do you believe we evolved, do you believe god deceived us, or did you come up with another possibility p?:
Sure God created us with no deception, you have no relationship with God so you are confused and blame God that you are and say He is deceiving. In reality there is reason things are the way they are and we are far less knowing to understand that without God.

If you're going to copout of question by making ridiculous statements, and saying that I don't understand because I have no relationship with god. Then I am not going to bother conversing with you.:
I am not copting out. You can't learn the knowledge unless you go to the source. You must admit that if God exist then people who really believe Him and commune with Him have the better chance of understanding these things through Him.

And what if in questioning both, you found nothing wrong with this fact? It was innerant. It was impossible to be wrong. Literally impossible. What would you do then?:
IDK, never had it happen yet.

And here is where i convene our exchange. There is no point in me talking to someone who can't say that when confronted with a fact that disproves one of their beliefs, they will stop believing.:
Incorrect, this doesnt disprove my belief only that something in my belief is wrong. Many parts are and could be correct. But I admit to look further with distress if it happened.


Yeah, you aren't dismissing it, you're just deciding it isn't important, so you can't be bothered to deal with it.:
I would be interested in learning about it but I doubt if I dont know about it that it would end up being life altering.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.