----
The OT is God's message to Isreal, the Jews. I am not a Jew. The NT is God's message, through Jesus Christ, to the Gentiles.
----
Where does the Bible say this?
----
You mean by my unwillingness to research and find and exhaustive article that addresses and explains the information regarding Numbers 31? Did I not do that?
----
I didn't ask for someone else's apologism, I want to hear what you have to say. Which is, apparently, a whole lot of nothing using a lot of unecessary words.
----
Did you read ANY of the link I provided?
----
I read the entire thing, you obviously don't understand what I'm arguing.
----
I believe in a God that gives people the right to choose Heaven or Hell.
----
So the babies got to choose?
----
Did you also noticed that the Isrealites were judged/punished for their deceietful actions towards God?
----
I would hardly call offering sacrifices punishment when the other group is punished with death.
----
I guess I am asking for specific sources of goodness and tolerance, outside of simply "common sense". Afterall, common sense originates from somewhere. What would be an examp,e of something that common sense says is good, but a religous text does not say is good?
----
I can beat Christ's love right off the bat: You don't even have to believe in God to be a good person. I don't hold the threat of hell over people's heads. I win.
Source: My brain.
TriFloyd:
----
I think you’ve got to grant me that, when it comes to the Bible no one is objective. We’re both biased.
----
I can't grant you that at all. To me the Bible is no different than any other fiction book. You put your entire being into it; to me it's just another clump of paper and ink that just happens to dominate the culture I live in. So no, we are not "both biased". We are not opposite sides of the same coin.
----
Still, I hope we can agree that the ideas underlying this statement are some of what we’re disagreeing about during this discussion.
----
My idea of fairness is consistency.
Your idea of fairness is "whatever God does, no matter what it is".
Let's say:
Two men walk down the street eating a sandwich and they both throw the wrapper on the ground. God is watching all this happen and kills one of the men immediately and makes the other one feel a little itchy.
To me this is unfair and inconsistent because there were different punishments for the exact same crime. To you it is fair and consistent simply because God did it.
So yeah...
----
God must be true to His characteristics, but it’s important not to impute man’s limitations on God.
----
If this is the way we must operate, then god is 100% meaningless in the affairs of men. Because the entire dogmatic moral framework belief in God imposes on us must be completely inaccurate, no?
If God operates on an entirely different level, how can we say we have any idea what God is about?
The OT is God's message to Isreal, the Jews. I am not a Jew. The NT is God's message, through Jesus Christ, to the Gentiles.
----
Where does the Bible say this?
----
You mean by my unwillingness to research and find and exhaustive article that addresses and explains the information regarding Numbers 31? Did I not do that?
----
I didn't ask for someone else's apologism, I want to hear what you have to say. Which is, apparently, a whole lot of nothing using a lot of unecessary words.
----
Did you read ANY of the link I provided?
----
I read the entire thing, you obviously don't understand what I'm arguing.
----
I believe in a God that gives people the right to choose Heaven or Hell.
----
So the babies got to choose?
----
Did you also noticed that the Isrealites were judged/punished for their deceietful actions towards God?
----
I would hardly call offering sacrifices punishment when the other group is punished with death.
----
I guess I am asking for specific sources of goodness and tolerance, outside of simply "common sense". Afterall, common sense originates from somewhere. What would be an examp,e of something that common sense says is good, but a religous text does not say is good?
----
I can beat Christ's love right off the bat: You don't even have to believe in God to be a good person. I don't hold the threat of hell over people's heads. I win.
Source: My brain.
TriFloyd:
----
I think you’ve got to grant me that, when it comes to the Bible no one is objective. We’re both biased.
----
I can't grant you that at all. To me the Bible is no different than any other fiction book. You put your entire being into it; to me it's just another clump of paper and ink that just happens to dominate the culture I live in. So no, we are not "both biased". We are not opposite sides of the same coin.
----
Still, I hope we can agree that the ideas underlying this statement are some of what we’re disagreeing about during this discussion.
----
My idea of fairness is consistency.
Your idea of fairness is "whatever God does, no matter what it is".
Let's say:
Two men walk down the street eating a sandwich and they both throw the wrapper on the ground. God is watching all this happen and kills one of the men immediately and makes the other one feel a little itchy.
To me this is unfair and inconsistent because there were different punishments for the exact same crime. To you it is fair and consistent simply because God did it.
So yeah...
----
God must be true to His characteristics, but it’s important not to impute man’s limitations on God.
----
If this is the way we must operate, then god is 100% meaningless in the affairs of men. Because the entire dogmatic moral framework belief in God imposes on us must be completely inaccurate, no?
If God operates on an entirely different level, how can we say we have any idea what God is about?