One More Reason Why The Christian God Is Sooo Difficult To Swallow

[Calvinist4Him]

I'll take the silence to be one of those "I CAAN'T HEEAARRR YOUUUUUUUUUUUU!" "I CAAN'T HEEAARRR YOUUUUUUUUUUUU!" defenses. Or is it simply a matter of the "good" in "God is good," to be up for grabs: No matter what god may do--rape and then eviscerate children--it's good.

Or you can take it as... " Yet another presuppostional errantist quoting out of context making Scripture to say what they want it to say, no thanks, i'll pass."

[Minnesota]

I understand. When the going gets tough, the hills are alive with the sound of "I CAAN'T HEEAARRR YOUUUUUUUUUUUU!" "I CAAN'T HEEAARRR YOUUUUUUUUUUUU!"

[Jawa Man]

I actually don't know how to respond to this that seems right to me. I will suggest a possibility: Israel had been going good (other than the famine they had for their sin against God), and they all had a good king. David took a census so that the Israelites would be able to conquer more lands. If they invade other lands, they'll get good stuff to add to all the good stuff there already was under David! So it's possible that the people associated themselves with David's sin by rallying around his call to war.

But don't take my word on it, I'm just suggesting a possibility.

[Xavier]

I understand. When the going gets tough, the hills are alive with the sound of "I CAAN'T HEEAARRR YOUUUUUUUUUUUU!" "I CAAN'T HEEAARRR YOUUUUUUUUUUUU!"

The hills are alive with the sound of bad thinking....
With songs they have sung, for a thousand years (even after being refuted).

[Sacrificial Ram]

i think an infinite God is far too big for the finite to swallow. Instead of trying to swallow him, ever try humbling thyself before Him?

Well, first you have to show there is a god period. Next you have to show that it is an infinite god, and third, you have to show that god wants people to humble themselves before she/he/it.

All that those quotes show is that the attitudes towards a possible God in ancient Judah was a lot different than it was even just a few centuries later, when they became more civilized and sophistocated.

[Calvinist4Him]

I understand. When the going gets tough, the hills are alive with the sound of "I CAAN'T HEEAARRR YOUUUUUUUUUUUU!" "I CAAN'T HEEAARRR YOUUUUUUUUUUUU!"

The hill are alive with the sound of: "why should i spend my day working to refute you?". i can't for the life of me think of a good reason why i should put effort into this. It's not like you've been reading the Scriptures and found a couple of difficult passages and are struggling with them. In all likelihood you went to a skeptic website and borrowed another person's errantist (poor) argument.

[Minnesota]

A4H,fair enough. I certaintly can't imbue you with any reason to defend the dilemma, that would only reside within yourself, and if it's not there, then it's just not there. And whether I went to another web site, or not, is, of course, beside the point (the truth is, I didn't). I simply find it rather odd that for someone who calls himself Apologist4Him--one who "argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution"--you would decline to do that very thing because I'm not struggling with a passage or two. I always thought that when someone argued in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution, they would not limit themselves to such easy targets as those who merely struggled with passages, but take on a true challenge. My mistake, I guess, KindofApologist4Him.

[Minnesota]

The hills are alive with the sound of bad thinking....

So far I haven't seen anything from you that addresses my point. So here's your chance to show me where my thinking has gone awry, or is "the sound of bad thinking" in reference to those who ignore the "dilemma"? (Gotta at least recognize the option here.)

[Jawa Man]

I'm sorry Minnesota, but have you read what I suggested? (This is not a jab at you, I mean this with respect.)

[Calvinist4Him]

A4H,fair enough. I certaintly can't imbue you with any reason to defend the dilemma, that would only reside within yourself, and if it's not there, then it's just not there. And whether I went to another web site, or not, is, of course, beside the point (the truth is, I didn't). I simply find it rather odd that for someone who calls himself Apologist4Him--one who "argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution"--you would decline to do that very thing because I'm not struggling with a passage or two. I always thought that when someone argued in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution, they would not limit themselves to such easy targets as those who merely struggled with passages, but take on a true challenge. My mistake, I guess, KindofApologist4Him.

Nice try, but no cigar. *yawn* Are you from the state of Minnesota? Do you currently live in the state of Minnesota? If not, your not a true Minnesotian.

[Xavier]

Two central moral principals of justice are that only the guilty should be punished, and that the punishment should fit the crime. And, indeed this what the Bible does teach:

You are assuming that the punishment didn't fit the crime.

In other words, god does not intend to lead by example, but takes the attitude of, "Do as I say not as I do. And it would be nice if, in spite of my actions and double standard, you still called me 'good' and gave me your praise. Thanks guys. And just remember, screw up and I just may take it out on your kids."

Argument by Assumption

So, while such moral principals are neat for us sinners, god has no need of them.

Again, you are simply assuming your view to be true.

[Xavier]

So far I haven't seen anything from you that addresses my point. So here's your chance to show me where my thinking has gone awry, or is "the sound of bad thinking" in reference to those who ignore the "dilemma"? (Gotta at least recognize the option here.)

Happy now...

Fallacy, Fallacy, and oh... A Fallacy...

Yeah Minn... Wonderful job

[Calvinist4Him]

Happy now...

Fallacy, Fallacy, and oh... A Fallacy...

Yeah Minn... Wonderful job

Can i laugh at him? Please, please?

[The Laughing Man]

Interesting... So when met with answers that he doesn't like, the "half-vast" skeptic resorts to "I CAAN'T HEEAARRR YOUUUUUUUUUUUU!" "I CAAN'T HEEAARRR YOUUUUUUUUUUUU!" defenses.

Of course, that's not half as amusing as this:

Or is it simply a matter of the "good" in "God is good," to be up for grabs: No matter what god may do--rape and then eviscerate children--it's good.

Someone please tell me how someone with absolutely no moral absolutes can talk about what's good and what's bad (or evil).

[rdalin]

Two central moral principals of justice are that only the guilty should be punished, and that the punishment should fit the crime. And, indeed this what the Bible does teach:

Deuteronomy 24

16 Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.

BUT evidently it's a moral principal only for man, and not one that is of any concern to god.

Exodus 20

5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,

Or take:

2 Samuel 24

1 Again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, "Go and take a census of Israel and Judah."

10 David was conscience-stricken after he had counted the fighting men, and he said to the LORD , "I have sinned greatly in what I have done. Now, O LORD , I beg you, take away the guilt of your servant. I have done a very foolish thing."

11 Before David got up the next morning, the word of the LORD had come to Gad the prophet, David's seer:

12 "Go and tell David, 'This is what the LORD says: I am giving you three options. Choose one of them for me to carry out against you.' "

13 So Gad went to David and said to him, "Shall there come upon you three years of famine in your land? Or three months of fleeing from your enemies while they pursue you? Or three days of plague in your land? Now then, think it over and decide how I should answer the one who sent me."

15 So the LORD sent a plague on Israel from that morning until the end of the time designated, and seventy thousand of the people from Dan to Beersheba died. 16 When the angel stretched out his hand to destroy Jerusalem, the LORD was grieved because of the calamity and said to the angel who was afflicting the people, "Enough! Withdraw your hand."

17 When David saw the angel who was striking down the people, he said to the LORD , "I am the one who has sinned and done wrong. These are but sheep. What have they done? Let your hand fall upon me and my family."

In other words, god does not intend to lead by example, but takes the attitude of, "Do as I say not as I do. And it would be nice if, in spite of my actions and double standard, you still called me 'good' and gave me your praise. Thanks guys. And just remember, screw up and I just may take it out on your kids."

So, while such moral principals are neat for us sinners, god has no need of them.

You left out the worst one of all, I believe: the tainting of the entire human race with "original sin" because of Adam and Eve's supposed transgression.