God; a good father or a deadbeat dad. Which is the truth?

[hobelim]

Anyways, god couldn't create a human without sin and you expect me to believe that He's going to punish people because they now have sin?

Wrong angle. Let's try this: What is the purpose for teaching a gun safety class?

The purpose is not to assure people that if someone gets shot they're safe because someone will get them medical care.

When Jesus came to save us from sin, he meant just that. He came to teach us how to avoid sin so that sin doesn't damage/enslave us. Just as a gun safety class isn't meant to keep us safe after the bullets hit, neither is the crucifixion meant to keep us safe after sins hit. It is meant for us to use to avoid sin before we ever succumb to sin. Jesus taught a way of life. As a man, he lived a life of avoiding sin by being ever obedient to the will of the Father. He told us to follow him in this because he is the way, the truth, the life.

Sure, you can take modern English, and reuse English from five hundred years ago, to propose the ridiculous idea that Jesus death was mean to save us from punishment for sinning. Forget that. Jesus' death was to save us, not from punishment, but from the actual bullets of sin--when we follow in his ways.

You want saved from sin? Follow Jesus. Closely. You will live a redeemed life and one where you turn away from sin because Jesus' way, your way, is now obedience to the Father. When you fail? Repent, turn back, and all is forgiven. It will be remembered no more.

If god didn't want us to sin, he simply had to make us without sin. He didn't, did he?

If you want to be without sin, you must throw everything Meriweather teaches and believes about an edible three in one god made man made matzo made by human hands into the trash..

then wash your eyes, brush your tongue and disinfect your ears....


If you don't throw garbage into the trash, Gehenna, it will rot in your mind, contaminate your thoughts, and your life will end up in the trash, Gehenna, where reality itself is like a consuming fire that will never go out.

 

[Meriweather]

If sin is disobedience to the law then to avoid sin one must conform to the laws demands.

True?


To save people from sin Jesus taught and demonstrated the only right way to understand and comply with the law that leads to the promised life for obedience and freedom from the death consequent to sin.

True?


What did Jesus teach is the only right way to understand and conform to kosher law?

We seem to follow different definitions as to what constitutes sin.

 

[Bonzi]

God; a good father or a deadbeat dad. Which is the truth?


The use of the term Father in speaking of God is quite ancient and was around way before Jesus started using the term, even though he used son of man a lot more than son of God.


A son calling someone father in the proud way Jesus did is respecting a worthy father, but if we look at Yahweh, I do not see how anyone could be proud of such a father.


Yahweh is definitely portrayed as being quite vile thanks to his use of genocide, infanticide and punishing the innocent instead of the guilty quite often. Yahweh is also shown to covet Joseph’s wife, cuckold Joseph, produce a son and then take off for parts unknown leaving his responsibility for his son to others thus showing himself to be a deadbeat dad.


Scripture say that we are all sons of God. To be relevant to his children, a father has to be around to interact with them. It seems that God does not want to be relevant to us as he remains absent and places us, his children, at the mercy of people who have written scripture more to enrich themselves than to give us the messages from God that they claim to know. Even though scriptures say that God id unknowable and unfathomable and his desires cannot be known.


My analysis of the bible and God does not show God to be a good father.


Do you, as a child of God, see God as a good father or as more of a deadbeat dad?


Regards

DL

All terms and values created by man
If you are going to discuss God, you need to assume he's perfect.
You can argue that with human logic, because, we ourselves are not perfect.....

 

[Mudda]

Just think for a sec, if your god really existed, would it really need a book written by men to convince people of its existence?

The Bible isn't about convincing people of God's existence. The parts I like best are the ones that record people's experiences of God. It is indeed possible to have an experience of God. That is why there will always be those who believe.

So how did Noah get marsupials from Australia and back again?

 

[Meriweather]

So how did Noah get marsupials from Australia and back again?

Ah, a believer in a planet-wide flood--despite what the Bible says.

 

[Mudda]

So how did Noah get marsupials from Australia and back again?

Ah, a believer in a planet-wide flood--despite what the Bible says.

The bible says a planet wide flood, not me.

 

[Meriweather]

The bible says a planet wide flood, not me.

No, it doesn't. In fact, the Bible records that after God separated land from sea in the beginning, the earth would never be entirely covered with water again. In Genesis, it says the earth was covered. Often during heavy rainstorms, if I look out my kitchen window I will see the earth there covered in water. Doesn't mean the planet is covered. Genesis doesn't use the word "planet" for Noah's flood. It uses the word that conveys ground--an awful lot of ground to be sure, but there is nothing in the account to prevent it from being anything more than a catastrophic regional event.

Helps to know the language of time, not just modern American English.

 

[Mudda]

The bible says a planet wide flood, not me.

No, it doesn't. In fact, the Bible records that after God separated land from sea in the beginning, the earth would never be entirely covered with water again. In Genesis, it says the earth was covered. Often during heavy rainstorms, if I look out my kitchen window I will see the earth there covered in water. Doesn't mean the planet is covered. Genesis doesn't use the word "planet" for Noah's flood. It uses the word that conveys ground--an awful lot of ground to be sure, but there is nothing in the account to prevent it from being anything more than a catastrophic regional event.

Helps to know the language of time, not just modern American English.

Are you making this up as you go along?

 

[Meriweather]

Are you making this up as you go along?

No. I simply progressed further with the Bible than the Little Golden Books version children use.

 

[Mudda]

Are you making this up as you go along?

No. I simply progressed further with the Bible than the Little Golden Books version children use.

So how do you know that your interpretation is the right one?

 

[hobelim]

We seem to follow different definitions as to what constitutes sin.

lol... who knew? To me what you consider the most holy of holy obligations I see as the most despicable and egregious of sins. To you sinning and teaching others to sin is a religious duty.

Lets see what the Bible says.....


To commit sin is to break God law. Sin, in fact, is lawlessness. Christ appeared, as you know, to do away with sin, and there is no sin in him. No one, therefore, who dwells in him is a sinner. 1John 2:4



The problem with the law is that on the surface it seems to be regulating diet , fashion, and sexual behavior. It was revealed to Jesus that the law had deeper implications and was about more important matters.

That was the dilemma, the test. Which way is the way to eternal life? What subjects are the concern of God?

Is the law about diet or education? food or teaching? Clothing or integrity? What you wear or how you act? Sexual behavior or social intercourse?

Slaughtering farm animals or putting low-lifes in their place?



What did Jesus say about the law?

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside even the least of these commands and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, Matthew 5:17-19..


To understand what Jesus meant by saying " least in the kingdom of heaven, " see Genesis 3:14

 

[Meriweather]

So how do you know that your interpretation is the right one?

I only wish I was smart enough to claim this as 'my interpretation!' Credit Hebrew scholars (mostly). I simply studied what they presented.

Let's picture the two of us at a younger age, learning from science that a planet-wide flood would have left evidence--and that there is no evidence of a planet-wide flood. You take what science says and use this as evidence that the Bible is hogwash. I take that path less traveled (much lengthier than jumping to a conclusion) because I want to know why the Bible said "all the earth" and science said, "not possible."

What I learned is that the Hebrew word for "planet/world" is different from "earth". I studied archaeological/geological information available on regional catastrophic floods. I studied ancient cultures and how their story telling differs from modern news. I studied other statements about the earth once being covered with water. I studied language/linguistics. My final conclusion is that modern man, not ancient man, along with language interpretation and language evolution, came up with the planet-wide flood--causing people to imagine koalas on the ark.

 

[hobelim]

So how do you know that your interpretation is the right one?

I only wish I was smart enough to claim this as 'my interpretation!' Credit Hebrew scholars (mostly). I simply studied what they presented.

Let's picture the two of us at a younger age, learning from science that a planet-wide flood would have left evidence--and that there is no evidence of a planet-wide flood. You take what science says and use this as evidence that the Bible is hogwash. I take that path less traveled (much lengthier than jumping to a conclusion) because I want to know why the Bible said "all the earth" and science said, "not possible."

What I learned is that the Hebrew word for "planet/world" is different from "earth". I studied archaeological/geological information available on regional catastrophic floods. I studied ancient cultures and how their story telling differs from modern news. I studied other statements about the earth once being covered with water. I studied language/linguistics. My final conclusion is that modern man, not ancient man, along with language interpretation and language evolution, came up with the planet-wide flood--causing people to imagine koalas on the ark.

You seem to have forgotten to include in your speculations that there are hundreds of flood myths worldwide from antiquity.

It was not a regional flood. It was a global disaster, the aftermath of a celestial object that landed in the middle of Indian ocean about 8000 years ago and instantly vaporized billions of metric tons of water into the atmosphere causing a worldwide deluge of torrential rain and superstorms lasting weeks wiping out all settlements situated near rivers streams and even dry washes in the deserts after a mind boggling tsunami that wiped out all traces of costal civilizations.

 

[Mudda]

So how do you know that your interpretation is the right one?

I only wish I was smart enough to claim this as 'my interpretation!' Credit Hebrew scholars (mostly). I simply studied what they presented.

Let's picture the two of us at a younger age, learning from science that a planet-wide flood would have left evidence--and that there is no evidence of a planet-wide flood. You take what science says and use this as evidence that the Bible is hogwash. I take that path less traveled (much lengthier than jumping to a conclusion) because I want to know why the Bible said "all the earth" and science said, "not possible."

What I learned is that the Hebrew word for "planet/world" is different from "earth". I studied archaeological/geological information available on regional catastrophic floods. I studied ancient cultures and how their story telling differs from modern news. I studied other statements about the earth once being covered with water. I studied language/linguistics. My final conclusion is that modern man, not ancient man, along with language interpretation and language evolution, came up with the planet-wide flood--causing people to imagine koalas on the ark.

The reason science says no is that the bible is made up hogwash. There's no hidden meaning, it's just nonsense made up by ignorant men. You just failed to figure that out.

 

[hobelim]

So how do you know that your interpretation is the right one?

I only wish I was smart enough to claim this as 'my interpretation!' Credit Hebrew scholars (mostly). I simply studied what they presented.

Let's picture the two of us at a younger age, learning from science that a planet-wide flood would have left evidence--and that there is no evidence of a planet-wide flood. You take what science says and use this as evidence that the Bible is hogwash. I take that path less traveled (much lengthier than jumping to a conclusion) because I want to know why the Bible said "all the earth" and science said, "not possible."

What I learned is that the Hebrew word for "planet/world" is different from "earth". I studied archaeological/geological information available on regional catastrophic floods. I studied ancient cultures and how their story telling differs from modern news. I studied other statements about the earth once being covered with water. I studied language/linguistics. My final conclusion is that modern man, not ancient man, along with language interpretation and language evolution, came up with the planet-wide flood--causing people to imagine koalas on the ark.

The reason science says no is that the bible is made up hogwash. There's no hidden meaning, it's just nonsense made up by ignorant men. You just failed to figure that out.

There is evidence of an impact crater on the bottom of the Indian Ocean 25 times the size of meteor crater in Arizona that dates to the approximate time of the flood stories.

 

[Meriweather]

The reason science says no is that the bible is made up hogwash. There's no hidden meaning, it's just nonsense made up by ignorant men. You just failed to figure that out.

I agree that the Bible is straightforward with no hidden meanings for those who understand the language and culture of the times. I disagree with your assessment that ancient man was ignorant. In fact, if we could go back in time, comparably, modern man might not do as well.

Grin. Someone who failed to try is telling someone who actually did the work that they failed to figure it out.

 

[Mudda]

The reason science says no is that the bible is made up hogwash. There's no hidden meaning, it's just nonsense made up by ignorant men. You just failed to figure that out.

I agree that the Bible is straightforward with no hidden meanings for those who understand the language and culture of the times. I disagree with your assessment that ancient man was ignorant. In fact, if we could go back in time, comparably, modern man might not do as well.

Grin. Someone who failed to try is telling someone who actually did the work that they failed to figure it out.

Did what work? Convince yourself that you live in a world of fairy tales? The bible starts out with an invisible dude who makes everything in 6 days so he can rest on the seventh. I've read comic books that are more believable. So tell me, what work did you do on that passage and what did you come up with?

 

[Meriweather]

Did what work? Convince yourself that you live in a world of fairy tales? The bible starts out with an invisible dude who makes everything in 6 days so he can rest on the seventh. I've read comic books that are more believable. So tell me, what work did you do on that passage and what did you come up with?

Didn't we already discuss this?

 

[Mudda]

Did what work? Convince yourself that you live in a world of fairy tales? The bible starts out with an invisible dude who makes everything in 6 days so he can rest on the seventh. I've read comic books that are more believable. So tell me, what work did you do on that passage and what did you come up with?

Didn't we already discuss this?

Oh right, you had nothing.

 

[onefour1]

The truth doesn't care if you are impressed with it. It simply is.

He sacrificed Himself because He loves you

Jesus died on the cross in a diaper to pay for my sins, so since that bill is paid, all sinning is IRRELEVANT!!!

If all sinning is irrelevant, then why will God hold a judgement?

2 Corinthians 5:10
10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

Revelation 20:12-13
12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

It is a false notion to think that we are automatically forgiven of sin because Jesus atoned for the sins of the world. His atonement won him the right to forgive sin and not that he distributes forgiveness automatically. One must repent by confessing and forsaking his sin before Jesus will forgive. For this reason Jesus taught:

Matthew 4:17
17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Luke 13:3,5
3 I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.

Acts 3:19
19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;