Bible Question.

[§outh§tar]

I have quoted just one line for ease, and space saving- but I can gather from your complete response, and with some help from R.C.Sproul - that you state everything is good, even if we see it as bad. While it is a very common cop-out for religious folk, I can see that it will make your miserable lives that little bit more bearable. When your loved ones drop dead you can simply smile with joy that it's all for some great old grand scheme of superdaddy. When those you love are screaming in agony of the cancer that is invading their body, you can just laugh it off as all for the greater good. It must be an honour being able to pass swiftly through life with such a warm feeling. It makes me wonder why jesus bothered helping people. He might aswell have just said to the blind man:

"Don't worry about it buddy, so you're blind - it's all for your benefit".

Next time I know someone who's dying in extreme agony at the local hospital, I'll send him a congratulations card and some chocolate cake.

I see you missed the entire point, including the text from Romans 8 which should have helped put the R.C. Sproul quote in perspective.

It does raise some issues though.. You see, god said "thou shalt not kill", but the killer is only doing that which is good- and all part of the master plan, and so in actuality was intended to be a killer so he could do the good act of killing someone all for the greater good of god. We can't have sympathy for the victim because it's was all part of the master plan for him to be killed, and we can't blame the killer, because him being a killer was also part of the master plan.

Oh, before I forget, and probably upset you - let me add on the word "ultimately".

And first off, how did you possibly reach this conclusion from the information I gave? In both the previous and this argument, you have puposely ignored Romans 8:28. I feel like even if I do go over it, you will continue to either ignore it, or find some conclusion like this one which has little to nothing to do with what I have said. I do however urge you to look it over.

I didn't skip that part at all. If you read my post you'll see I made mention of it. I did not paste the entire text for two reasons:

A) you have a bible, (probably) and B) It wasn't relevant to the point- which is that god clearly states he punishes children for the sins of their fathers.

It's no surprise that you didn't try to refute it. After all, that is what he said.

If you are going to keep doing that, then why don't you post the entire verse where it talks about His mercies. That way you show you don't have a bias towards the verse.

Nono, I've read it all.. But what has happened is you've completely avoided what god said in Exodus, and the complete point of the post, instead pasting a line completely unrelated to the actual point.

god said: "I will punish the children for the sins of the fathers upto the 4th generation."

Yes or no?

Well if you continue posting only part of it, how can you possibly reach the right conclusion?

I see you know lots of people. It's just a shame you don't seem to have a voice of your own.

Well this is an obvious one. Since you have neglected what I did post from my own "voice", why should I bother?

How does any of this drivelling garbage detract from the point that god said he would punish children for the sins of their fathers upto the 4th generation?

When you have this sort of bias to take half of God's statement and scream bloody murder, and then I show you why even the Jews back then were unjustified in their claims, I would hope you can put two and two together. As I continue reading down the post, it does seem to me like your mind is set on seeing God as a murderer.

What are you talking about? This culture has been forced upon my people. Us English didn't ask to worship an israeli god. I didn't ask for someone to inflict my country with middle eastern shite. We were more than happy with our belief in King Arthur and Dick Whittington before someone came along and told us we had to worship a dead hippy jew instead.

This conversation is over. Good day.

 

[SnakeLord]

I see you missed the entire point, including the text from Romans 8 which should have helped put the R.C. Sproul quote in perspective.

Not really no. I feel a recap is needed to save you wandering off even further into the void.

Our first encounter here was when you asked me: "Are you actually blaming God for your son's death?"

The answer is ultimately 'no', because there is no such being, or on the other extreme - there's millions of them, so I wouldn't know which specific one to blame.

What I did do however, is to look at it from a religious standpoint. I would ask why you would sit there and say a woman who quickly recovers from some serious cancer, has been saved by a miracle performed by god- but then would never even think to mention that the woman who got struck down with some serious cancer was actually also performed by god.

Do you think that perhaps people would be a little more skeptical of this particular god if more attention was paid to the death toll, rather than the miraculous savings?

You then pasted someones website that wasn't really expected or needed.

The pair of you did mention that I shouldn't see things as good/evil but as part of gods ultimate master plan. The thing is, it's irrelevant to the point. What I pointed out and asked, is why religious people will happily say god has saved a life, but will never say that god has taken a life - which, according to you and sproul, he has- but merely to fit in with his ultimate scheme. If, according to you and sproul, nothing can be seen as evil or bad, then why the serious hesitation to ever point out that god is responsible for the deaths of people?

I then went on to add god might have punished my son for my sins, or my fathers sins as he clearly states in Exodus. Three pages later and you have still failed to even acknowledge the point- All you did manage to say on the issue was that I am being horrid for even quoting the text- which hardly counts as reasonable debate or attempted refutation.

And first off, how did you possibly reach this conclusion from the information I gave? In both the previous and this argument, you have puposely ignored Romans 8:28.

I know the line, but it is irrelevant to anything here. You asked me if I blamed god- Romans 8:28 has no place in the matter. But anyway, let's take a look at Romans just to put your mind at ease..

28And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him

And those who don't love him? Would he work for the bad of those who don't love him? However, it is still meaningless in the case of my sons death.

If you are going to keep doing that, then why don't you post the entire verse where it talks about His mercies. That way you show you don't have a bias towards the verse.

It's not about bias, it's about relevance. I'm sure the guy is wonderful and abounding in love, and patience, and exceptionally happy, and full of joy... but he will punish children for the sins of their fathers...

I never said he wasn't nice, and it has absolute bugger all to do with the point which is that, (yeesh you're slow), god will punish children for the sins of their fathers.. which means, as I have stated time and time again, that he might have punished my son for my wrongdoings. Whether he's the wicked witch of the north, or prince charming is completely bloody irrelevant to the point. Wake up.

Here it is one more time for you, just incase by an act of god your brain starts working:

god said: "I will punish the children for the sins of the fathers upto the 4th generation."

Yes or no?

And if the answer is 'yes', then my point stands that he might have punished my son for my wrongdoings.

When you have this sort of bias to take half of God's statement and scream bloody murder

I didn't scream anything, I made a simple enough statement to which you can't even give an answer, or seemingly comprehend.

As I continue reading down the post, it does seem to me like your mind is set on seeing God as a murderer

You ask a question- I answer it, I ask a question - You don't even understand it. Kindly leave my questions in future to someone who's level of understanding and ability to read is a tiny bit more advanced.

 

[surenderer]

He came to fulfill the Law...

In a sense, Allah is really not "I am". "I am" implies that God has no name. "Allah" is a name. Unless it means "I am", then I apologise for my ignorance.

The whole point of God saying "I am" is that you cannot define Him in words. If you call Him a name, He is not God anymore. You cannot limit God with a name.

Also, worshipping a city, or bowing down to a city, whatever... is clearly against the Law of God - you just need to read the right verse in the Bible. That is once again trying to make God human. It is also a tradition. It is also worshipping something, instead of worshipping God.

Those are the main reasons why I'm not Muslim. Doesn't mean I don't like some of the Muslim scriptures (as long as there is Love, there is God)...

I understand what you say however AL-means supreme ultimate LAH-means being. The reason muslims call God that is beacause in Arabic that word cant be made plural or have a gender pronunciation. As far a praying to Mecca it shows unity among muslims and to do this 5 times a day all facing the same direction and it shows remberance of what the Prophet(saws) went through when he 1st started preaching in Mecca. The Kabla(big black stone in Mecca) is not what muslims pray to and it isnt in any of our prayers.....peace to you

 

[TruthSeeker]

I understand what you say however AL-means supreme ultimate LAH-means being. The reason muslims call God that is beacause in Arabic that word cant be made plural or have a gender pronunciation. As far a praying to Mecca it shows unity among muslims and to do this 5 times a day all facing the same direction and it shows remberance of what the Prophet(saws) went through when he 1st started preaching in Mecca. The Kabla(big black stone in Mecca) is not what muslims pray to and it isnt in any of our prayers.....peace to you

I understand your "Allah", now...
But praying to Mecca still seems not to be quite right to me. Didn't God say: "Don't worship any other god then me" ? Aren't you making Mecca a "god" when you worship it?

 

[OliverJ]

Anyway, thanks for your comments, and I wish you good luck tommorrow. Feel free to pm me if you want to talk about it.

Theres only one way to put this Snakelord, and I must ask you , given the circumstances of what I am going thru, do you think its a good idea to share with you my relations with my son?.... I would love to share everything and anything!! But in doing so, I dont want to inflict pain.

I am so sorry that any of this had to be brought up the way it did. But I had to ask you this question. Theres was just no other way around it. It was either ask , or completely leave it alone. And leaving it alone I couldnt do.
But will totally understand if you do.

 

[surenderer]

I understand your "Allah", now...
But praying to Mecca still seems not to be quite right to me. Didn't God say: "Don't worship any other god then me" ? Aren't you making Mecca a "god" when you worship it?

No remember we are praying towards a single direction as a form of unity and remberance we arent worshipping Mecca we are using it as a "beacon" if that makes any since

 

[SnakeLord]

Sure man it's cool, I wouldn't have mentioned it otherwise I actually did away with the whole 'pain' emotion - it was nothing but a pain..

 

[TruthSeeker]

No remember we are praying towards a single direction as a form of unity and remberance we arent worshipping Mecca we are using it as a "beacon" if that makes any since

It is still a tradition. If you want unity, just love one another. Love is the bond of unity, not Mecca.