Joined: 30 Nov 2002 Posts: 17 Location: http://www.harrington-sites.com
Posted: Sat Nov 30, 2002 5:52 pm Post subject: A faith born of fear
A faith born of fear
The demand of an unquestioning faith is a faith that fears examination. Such demands are not made by God, but by men seeking to impose their will upon others. For unlike a lie, the light of examination does not trouble the truth, but upholds it.
One does not need to try and rationalize what is inspired of God, for it is not absurd, does not contradict, nor confuse, but is easily understood from the simplest to greatest; yet, apologist must try and rationalize many things within the Bible. For faith in God and faith in the Bible are not one and the same. Dung is dung regardless of where it is found, and anyone who claims that God commanded the butchery of men, women and children is not called of God, but is a self-called preacher of dung!
If people believe evil things said of God, evil will be done in His name. It is time for God's people to quit being intellectually dishonest with self and with God, claiming that they approve of men, women and children being hacked to death as long as it is claimed that it was commanded by God. For there is no difference between the false bloody one of 1 Samuel 15:2-3 and that one whom the loonies of 9/11 served.
Children of God, what say you? Did the Spirit of Truth affirm within your Spiritual heart that what is said of God in 1 Samuel 15:2-3 speaks truthfully of your Heavenly Father? Have you, in seeking to please men, crucified your mind that you may swallow camels? Is it out of bondage to fear of unbelief that you pretend to not understand that such perverse things said of God are wicked?
Multiple sites dedicated to those, who before the age of reason, was lead into bondage to an unrighteous fear of God, through fear of unbelief in Biblical claims that promote self-hatred and passive ignorance. And to the atheist, whose mind is made hostile towards belief in God, because of abominable things that the wicked have said of God, yet are proclaimed by the self-called to be His spokesmen. And to the agnostics, who in being truthful with self and with God, have refused to please men by crucifying their mind to believe in superstitious mumbo-jumbo that is claimed by the self-appointed to be divinely inspired truth.
Hi Servant Wayne,
Your post says alot, but very little of it makes sence to me. As far as I can understand you are a person who doesn't believe in the validity of the Bible. Is that correct?
SW has taken the position that God is true and the Bible is false. See Wayne's parallel thread, Fools call me a God hater! I think he makes his point much clearer there.
His major complaint is this verse in the Bible:
Quote:
This is what the LORD Almighty says: "I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." 1 Samuel 15:2-3.
I think he totally missed my point about how to reconcile the existence of a righteous God and the whole world begin doomed to sickness, misery and death.
The numerous defects and sad implications of Wayne's presuppositions cannot be disguised or covered up:
Wayne trivializes faith and discounts a mountain of evidence. He seems unable to feel the powerful testimony of Jesus and the Apostles and their affirmations of the Old Testament Scriptures. Why does Wayne ignore God's greatest revelation to mankind and base his entire argument on a single, unexplained verse of the Old Testament? He would like to have everyone trust in his highly selective reasoning. He would have us believe that there is no Savior and no reason to trust in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Joined: 30 Nov 2002 Posts: 17 Location: http://www.harrington-sites.com
Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2003 9:38 pm Post subject:
It is not my intention to define what is an atrocity and what is not, but to point out that only a moron could believe that God would command the butchery of children.
Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2003 1:00 am Post subject: butchery - infinity
The primary meaning of the word "butchery" is "wanton or cruel killing." I looked up the meaning of "wanton." It means:
Gratuitously cruel; merciless.
Marked by unprovoked, gratuitous maliciousness; capricious and unjust: wanton destruction.
In short, I believe it's clear that the word butchery misstates the text.
I also believe that you're overreaching in your presumed enlightenment to insist that there is no mercy in God's command (1 Samuel 15:2-3).
It strikes me as reasonable that God requires faith. I have no argument against faith.
I don't presume to settle transcendent justice as perfectly as you profess to be able to. I believe that I'm limited. I find calculating with an infinite number of variables difficult, especially when the number of unknowns are incalculable. I have no reason to doubt that God is pursuing an optimized strategy against Satan. If innocent children and infants are forcibly removed from the evil, ruinous example of their parents and only need to sleep until the resurrection of the righteous, then I don't believe that I'm wise enough to criticize God's rescue attempt.
Joined: 30 Nov 2002 Posts: 17 Location: http://www.harrington-sites.com
Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2003 1:11 pm Post subject:
Eugene, you’re simply trying to put the best spin you can on 1 Samuel 15: 2-3. Unless of course, you really do believe that hacking children and their mothers to death in front of one another is not “Gratuitously cruel; merciless”? The spirit behind 1 Samuel 15: 2-3 is the spirit that inspired 9 / 11.
You are trying to swallow a camel because your faith is not in God alone, as it should be, but is in what men have said of God. For faith in God and faith in the Bible are not one and the same!
It is not my intention to define what is an atrocity and what is not, but to point out that only a moron could believe that God would command the butchery of children.
You should not be surprised to find that many intelligent and deep thinking Christians of all types haven't that much trouble embracing admittedly difficult scriptures like the one you have chosen.
Let us analyze the situation in careful detail. First lets see what we can agree upon. Obviously your argument has no basis unless you believe there actually is some objective standard of morality or ethics by which we can measure such cases. If it is just your version of ethics versus mine, then it has just become a mere 'artform', a collection of arbitrary and ultimately meaningless opinions which will fade to nothing against the background of a 'relativist' (not the physics version but the philosopher version) Universe where there is no 'God' or power, purpose, or authority to deal with or answer to.
But lets take your position at face value and say you believe in a 'God' of some kind, but not the One described in the 'bible'. What is this God like? Does he approve of the lifestyle of a lion, the snake swallowing the mouse, and did this 'God' of yours create the henious 'sybiotic relationship' of mutual ghoulish egg-laying and feasting upon paralyzed flesh engaged in by the Wasp and Tarantula? And if your 'God' approves of life-and-death struggles ending in paralyzation and blood-sucking of the victim as it stays alive to be eaten by the children of the victor, what is His opinion of killing children who have been orphaned in battle, the battle over scarce and precious resources, the battle of survival in which style and form only really matters if the strategy is successful for the experimentor?
And if your 'God' did NOT create the spider or shark, the wolf-pack, the mosquitoe, the rat, the plague, who did? And what kind of God stood around while His creation was so hopelessly and thoroughly corrupted?
My point first of all is, how is the execution of a few babies particularly special against say the backdrop of Pompeii burning, suffocating, and burying whole towns for no greater crime than being in the wrong place at the wrong time? Lest you think this is some rare or ancient anomaly, what about the recent Tsunani?
You also brought up the 9/11 example, and so I have a question about that too: why is that qualitatively different than the example Jesus spoke to in His own time, when the Tower fell and killed all those people? Do you have trouble applying Jesus' words of that time to the NY Tower of Today?
In the big picture, and after decades and decades of study of the scriptures, it seems to me that personally there are far bigger fish to fry than your trivial example of what you think is some kind of 'injustice'. If your 'God' gives life, and can raise the dead, what is death? Where is it's sting? Why is it much more than a temporary inconvenience?
Like the man that tried to copy Paul, but was beaten for his trouble, I have to point out a similar phrase that seems to apply here. The supposedly 'demon' possessed person simply said, "Jesus I know, and Paul I know, but who are YOU?" Likewise, I can imagine a modern homeless person saying to you, "Pain I know, and Fear I know, but what is Death?", if you were to threaten a man who has nothing to lose, he would just stare at you in incomprehension.
Joined: 30 Nov 2002 Posts: 17 Location: http://www.harrington-sites.com
Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2005 2:38 pm Post subject:
Rogue Physicist, In spite of the fact an idiot here has given me the moniker, "apologist for Satan", what you offer in defense of your argument were more likely the results of Satan's doings, not God's. For I'm not ignorant of the fact that Satan is real, in a vision long ago, he was revealed to me.
God has given me a liberty of faith that is not reliant upon an unquestioning belief in fairy tales, myths and primitive mumbo-jumbo. A faith in God that does not require the abandonment of common sense, nor the crucifying of the mind to believe deceptions of God that are at best, primitive.
That god you describe is an inspirer of stupidity, surely you should agree that the following examples are nothing more than primitive mumbo-jumbo. Or do you really think that Paul had women pegged right and that sex must be endured with gritted teeth?
1Timothy 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. (12) But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. (13) For Adam was first formed, then Eve. (14) And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. (15) Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
Putting aside the absurdity of tippy toeing upon the water, do you really think that the following actually occurred?
John 5:2 Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches. (3) In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water. (4) For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.
I could go on, but if you really think that the above examples are truths inspired of God, I'd just be wasting my time.
Wayne _________________ It serves neither God nor truth to try and rationalize irrational things the Bible says of God.
Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2005 9:12 pm Post subject: "a faith that fears examination"
Don't change the subject, servant of Satan. Try to be honest and deal fairly with the responses you have received. Face your failure in not being able to answer adequately. Stick to your original point.
I could go on, but if you really think that the above examples are truths inspired of God, I'd just be wasting my time.
Okay, I'll take your points head-on.
What bible are you basing this on?
Whose definition of the Canon are we going to use?
Whose 'reconstruction' of the Greek NT are we going to 'authorize'?
What of the countless doctrines called 'Christian' shall we start with?
You have quoted 1st Timothy as apparently being an authentic letter of Paul. Do you believe that? Can you read NT Koine Greek like I can? I have taken my study of the scriptures seriously. So seriously that I don't rely upon translations or 'interpretations' anymore.
I spent 30 years mastering Hebrew, Greek, Chaldean, Aramaic, Syriac, and even some Coptic and Ethiopic. What did I learn from all that? That translators are often 'interpreters', and can't be trusted to see past their own doctrines and biases.
I spent many years studying textual criticism. What did I learn from all that? That naive and honest scribes produce more accurate copies of the bible than University nitwits who have the arrogance to tamper with texts they don't even believe in.
Do you think that Matthew is a better representation of the gospel than Luke?
You have quoted the Book of John, the last of a series of 'gospels', which reflects a mature and deep spiritual understanding of the advent of Jesus Christ. But let's not pretend it is a naive and primitive original gospel. It is the most sophisticated book in the New Testament.
Are you looking for historical (in)accuracies in the book of John? All I can say is you've misunderstood the nature and purpose of the book. It is an interpretation of the gospel, not a gospel, whether or not it is the best such treatise ever penned. You'd be better off searching for advanced linear algebra in Hosea than searching for geographical info in John.
Do I honestly care what Paul may think about women? We were talking about something serious, the origin and comprehension of 'evil' in the world, and you have typically decided to wallow in the mud of Roman cultural baggage. I suppose we will be talking about hairstyles next!
Paul's view of women may be fashionable to attack in women's lib circles, but it just isn't the most important issue facing Christianity today. Perhaps you get 'laid' more often pretending you care about it, but I don't buy that for a second. Every man I have met who babbled about Paul and women was just trying to get it off with some university babe. If you actually were a woman, you might have slightly more credibility, in that you'd be acting in a more honest version of self-interest.
Let me quote a serious biblical character on your inappropriate choice of subjects, and lack of perspective:
Quote:
"Am I a dog's head? Until this day I have been loyal to your father's throne, protecting you, and now you stir up charges against me concerning some woman!". (2 Samuel 3:8).
Call me when you want to talk about something serious.
Joined: 30 Nov 2002 Posts: 17 Location: http://www.harrington-sites.com
Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 12:52 pm Post subject:
Rogue, are you so vain as to think that if God had anything new to say, surely He would have told you first?
Regardless of your puff up view of your self, the truth of what I preach is self-evident and simple to grasp. That to believe without evidence, other than the words of primitive men, that God commanded them to be butchers of babies, one accepts either out of bondage to an unrighteous fear of God, or out of plain stupidity.
No one at this site can or will stand before God and truthfully say that God did personally tell them that He commanded abominations like 1 Samuel 15:2-3. The very best anyone can say on this matter is that they believe it because they are afraid not to!
My faith in God is not based upon fear of God, but upon truthful agreement with what is said of God. Thus, the liberty of my faith allows me to call a spade a spade. I've no fear of God in truthfully saying that to me some things Paul has said make sense, while others things he has said is utterly ridiculous. My faith does not require swallowing camels, or casting aside common sense by crucify mind to believe stupid things that would otherwise be recognized as foolishness.
I'll not engage in quibbling over the different translations of the Bible, I have all the major translations and have yet to see one that make hacking children and babies to death seem like a good thing to do.
As far as I'm concerned about the different translations of the Bible, be it in Hebrew, Greek or English, God is not an author of confusion. In other words, what He would inspire, He would protect. It would not contain words that can not be properly translated from one language to another, it would not have words whose meanings have become lost, or is no longer understood. For example, according to Lawrence Schiffman: Professor in Hebrew and Judaic Studies, New York university, the meaning of some 25% of the words in the Hebrew Bible are disputed.
If the Bible were truly the word of God it would not need to be deciphered by a gaggle of theologians, but would be understood by the simplest of minds to the greatest. Yet the Bible sows confusion, sowing thousands of competing denominations, each claiming that it is their interpretation of the Bible that is the correct interpretation.
Would God not have weighed and measured His words more carefully than a man would. Would He not have known the effect of His own words? Certainly! Yet the Bible have been used to justify every sort of evil. For it is bondage to an unrighteous fear of God that causes one to a participant in their own self-deception by denying that Hitler was not assisted by theses so-called holy words.
Adolph Hitler: "I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work." (In a speech to the Reichstag, 1936)
JOHN 8:44 (Jesus speaking to the Jews) "YOU ARE FROM YOUR FATHER THE DEVIL, and you choose to do your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies."
1 THESSALONIANS 2:14-16 "For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of THE JEWS: (15) Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: (16) Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins always: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost." (KJV)
For the Bible is composed of a Spiritual duality, sowing good or evil according to the desire of one's Spiritual heart.
Wayne _________________ It serves neither God nor truth to try and rationalize irrational things the Bible says of God.
Rogue, are you so vain as to think that ... God ...surely would have told you first?
And why not? But this statement directly contradicts your own position, that God has shown you a superior revelation to the bible:
Quote:
God is not (the) author of confusion. Yet the Bible sows confusion...
Your thesis is unproven. You are quoting the bible against itself. But if you don't respect it as an authority why should I? And if you do quote ideas in the bible, on what basis do you get to choose what you accept or reject? Your arbitrary personal 'intuition'? And why can't I do the same. It may be a fair test of a mathematical theory to search it first for self-contradictions. The bible can't be dealt with so simply. It quotes many people of varying honesty and wisdom. And the narratives also reflect cultures long past which are prone to misunderstanding. Since you admit you are no expert like me, who are you do decide what part of the bible is true or false? But this is just what you are doing.
Your argument blows. Who is to say whether God is or isn't the Author of Confusion? and the author of dozens of other things too. You've already dismissed the only credible authority for your main thesis. The evidence you cite contradicts your own claim.
Quote:
In other words, what He would inspire, He would protect. (A real bible) would not contain words that cannot be properly translated (or) whose meanings have become lost...but Schiffman says 25% of the words in the Hebrew Bible are disputed.
Now you're trying to sell back to me a Baptist doctrine of Plenary Inspiration of the Bible. Even the Baptists, who are the the most stubbornly conservative, strict interpreters of the subject of biblical inerrancy of all time, had to abandon the doctrine of the 'perfect protection' of the bible, in the face of overwhelming evidence. The evidence is simply that man has indeed poorly preserved and cared for God's messages, and in some cases deliberately attacked the word of God.
Is this inconsistent with scripture, or history, or the message of the New Testament? NO! Just as they did to Jesus Himself, they have also done to His word. Jesus was abused and mutilated almost beyond recognition, yet the truth was still apparent to the Roman soldier beside him; "Surely this was a righteous man!". Likewise, you yourself have admitted the same about the bible:
Quote:
For the Bible is composed of a Spiritual duality, sowing good or evil according to the desire of one's Spiritual heart.
But this was recognized by greater men than you long ago: If an ass looks into the bible, the reflection of an ass looks back out at him. But even an ass doesn't appear so dumb if he keeps quiet.
Thankfully I don't have to take the word of some New York Jewish atheist who thinks he's an expert. The Torah only requires a vocabulary of about 5000 words, the syntax is primitive, and 90% of the ambiguity he's talking about has to do with identifying fauna and flora referred to in patriarchal times. Do you really care if 'turtledove' should really be 'pigeon'?
Quote:
...My faith in God is ... based ... upon truthful agreement with what is said of God.
This amazes me. You reject the bible and its teachings, only to follow the nebulous concensus of unknown and dubious idiots who agree upon some 'definition' of the qualities of God that you can accept. Let's try to imagine what you could possibly think God might be like. No - I'll wait for you to tell me.
Quote:
If the Bible were truly the word of God it would not need to be deciphered by a gaggle of theologians, but would be understood by the simplest of minds to the greatest.
Perhaps it actually is, and this is precisely what you have missed. Even the simplest child probably has a clearer view of Jesus and God, based on Sunday school bible stories, than you do. How did that happen? "He who thinks he knows a thing knows nothing as he ought to have known it.".
Quote:
Yet the Bible ha(s) been used to justify every sort of evil.
Yes: by criminals.
Quote:
Adolph Hitler: "I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work." (In a speech to the Reichstag, 1936)
What are you trying to say here? That Hitler was a Christian? This is the worst example of dirty debating I have seen in a long time. Everybody knows Adolf lied. He planned to kill the Christians too, all along.
Quote:
JOHN 8:44 (Jesus speaking to the Jews) "YOU ARE FROM YOUR FATHER THE DEVIL,...
Give me a break. Jesus wasn't speaking to the 'Jews'. He was speaking to a group of Judeans who were His contemporaries. Are you saying now that Jesus was a racist too? Just because a large number of not very bright inbreds from the Southern USA think Jesus was an Aryan Supremist, please don't think you can get away with it too. Aren't you just a little brighter than that?
Quote:
for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of THE JEWS...
What is up with this? Clearly Paul is talking about universal prejudice against Christians from their own families, tribes and cultures. Prejudice and persecution arising (not from Christians or believers) but from enemies of God's message. Like you. Is Paul a racist now too? The Apostle to the Gentiles? The one who singlehandedly delivered what was best in Messianic Judaism to the people of the world?
Last edited by Rogue Physicist on Tue Jul 12, 2005 4:24 pm; edited 2 times in total
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in
