Why does god kill children? (page 18)

Vidiot

Comatose - Why does god kill children?

'Cause regular (decent) people can't bring themselves to?

Vidiot

AndDon'tCallMeShirley - "...she cannot/will not draw the same correlation to the identical atrocities committed by the Israelites."

Moot.

There's virtually no physical evidence that the Isrealite conquest of Canaan (and its integral atrocities) actually even happened.

It's more likely a series of tribal legends that culturally coalesced to give the Hebrews a framework of solidarity and national identity.

But I digress.

The cake is a lie.

EntirelyPossible

The cake is a lie.

There's no sense crying over every mistake, we'll just keep on trying 'til we run out of cake. The science gets done and you make a neat gun for people who are still alive.

AndDontCallMeShirley

vidiot:

There's virtually no physical evidence that the Isrealite conquest of Canaan (and its integral atrocities) actually even happened.

---

I totally agree.

Nothing I've said here should be construed that I believe the Bible or its stories. I'm attempting to get the people who do believe it to explain how any of the stories provide evidence of a loving god. The answer that's been offered so far as to why god kills children is that 'they had it coming'.

And, the point is simply this: even if all the Bible stories were 100% true, would anything in them compel a normal, rational, moral person to serve the god depicted?

Fundamentalists argue that these stories contain great moral lessons. How? If the lessons are so moral the fundies wouldn't have to spend all their time making excuses for the stories in an attempt to make them even a little palatable. Taking them as-written they're an impossible sell.

iCeltic

I'd still like to know which part of the bible is inspired and which part isn't, and how you come to that conclusion. Tec? Or anyone for that matter.

AndDontCallMeShirley

I'd still like to know which part of the bible is inspired and which part isn't, and how you come to that conclusion. Tec? Or anyone for that matter.

--

tec's answer earlier was basically that the parts she likes/agrees with are inspired, and the parts she doesn't like are not.

here's one of tec's answers from page 5:

The answer I gave... that not everything that man attributes to God is actually God... is part of my answer to your query in the OP. On top of that, man does not interpret everything as it should be interpreted, because of how it is written... because there are errors that come into play, from the scribes (those who took down the words; those who copied them, certainly those who translated from one language to another... considering also how words and phrases and customs change through time) Those errors and misunderstandings get passed on from generation to generation, distorting what was meant.

Essentially, god doesn't have enough power to make sure his own book remains untainted. So, if humans can thwart god's message why would a person put faith in any other claim that god makes? God seems rather inept and impotent.

iCeltic

I'm sure Tec must have a good reason for thinking only part of the bible is inspired, I'm curious as to what is. If you can Tec, can you be specific as to which is and isn't inspired and how exactly you come to that conclusion?

iCeltic

Yeah I saw that ADCMS, I was hoping she'd be more exacting than that. I was also wondering if she (or others) felt that within the same book written by the same bible writer if there were things within that they felt were inspired and parts that are not.

In other words, get straight to the point, which parts are inspired and which parts are not and how did you come to that conclusion. Does Jesus tell you or is it from some other source you get this knowledge?

tec

I understand that the parts that are scripture (inspired) are those that are received from God; given in spirit. Prophets spoke of the visions and words given to them to speak. (moses is a prophet, and then there are all the other major and minor prophets) Revelation was given in spirit, by Christ, to John. John was in the spirit when he received and heard what he was to write down. (Rev: 1:10,11 On the Lord's day, I was in the Spirit and I heard behind me aloud voice lie a trumpet, which said: "Write on a scroll what you see and sent it to the seven churches: to Epheus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyraira, Sardis, Philadelphi and Laodicea.") David spoke by the Spirit, in the Psalms.

That would make Moses, the Prophets, Psalms, and Revelation.

There are some books that I don't know about, that could be, and i just am not sure.

Then there are some books like Luke... that specifically say they are a recording of things that happened, based on the testimony of people Luke interviewed, and matters he investigated. So not something given in spirit, but something that has been investigated so as to keep a record of things that happened.

Just as some books record the history of the Israelites, etc

But even scripture is subject to errors that man brings into it. The scribes, the translators (who too often choose what meaning of a word they think best fits the translation... but they have not asked or listened to the truth from the Spirit of Truth - Christ)

See, the real question I would ask would be of those who say otherwise... why do some think that the entire bible IS inspired scripture? Why do some think the entire bible IS inerrant? Becaues the reasons that I have heard on this matter simply do not stand up to the test. I have NO reason to believe that. Even the bible itself disputes it.

The thing is ICeltic... none of that matters if we are looking at Christ for Truth. We do not need to keep looking backward... we need only look at HIM. He is the teacher. HE can teach us what is true or not, and help us to see what might be from man, and what is from God. We are not to keep walking by sight... as we are when we are looking to the written word or religion, and idols, etc. We are to walk by FAITH, listening in the spirit, worshipping in spirit and in truth... so that there is no written word needed for those who walk by faith, (though for those still learning to do so, having something written may help in putting faith IN what we hear, when we also see it backed in writing... at least until we learn that we may trust what we hear in faith)

You are correct though in that God does not change. So if Christ shows the Truth of God, then God has always been as Christ shows Him to be.

True, that man has certainly made many images of God (and also of 'Jesus')... just as the Israelites did with the golden calf when they thought Moses was taking too long to return, and they gave up on waiting. (like how some have given up on waiting for Christ, and so have built their own images instead) But God SENT us His Image. No dead piece of wood, no melted gold, no statue, no dead paper and ink... but the LIVING Image, of the LIVING God.

Sorry for the length, Iceltic. If you need anything clarified, I will try to do so.

Peace to you,

tammy

Why does god kill children?

Share this