Ok, let's have some fun... :-) While I'm waiting for RB to digest my rather lengthy response, how about we find out who can answer the following question - - there's a prize for the correct answer!
In return for the correct answer to the question below, I will grant each winner with his/her choice of the following: a) an exegesis of a handful of passages of your choosing from the Bible b) my best guess as to the meaning of a handful of passages that you provide me from a religious text of your choosing. Your answer to the question below must contain the name of the city and any supporting passages from the Bible that give you reason to believe that your answer is correct. (If you only provide the city, you'll get an 'atta-boy', but no prize) Prologue: In the response I provided to RB, I discussed at some length the plight that came upon the ancient city (cities) of Sodom and Gomorrah as a consequence for the city's inhabitants having been given over so completely to sin. The question: Which modern day city does the Bible inform us is destined to receive the same judgement as Sodom and Gomorrah? Bon chance! On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 2:56 PM, SM <[email protected]> wrote: > because God's capabilities seem to change throughout the book; it is >> never entirely clear what they are... >> >> I appreciate that this is your perception, but without greater specificity > I'm at a loss to relate. I'm not sure that I know for certain how you mean > to use the term 'capabilities', but that sounds like "what God is able to > do"...as if you're looking for a list of how much He can bench press or > something? :) > > > there are instances where the power claimed on behalf of Bible God clearly >> outstrips the power that Bible God is capable of demonstrating >> >> Again, without specificity I'm at a loss to address this or even > understand your perception. > > > it is unclear whether the God spoken of is claimed to have created anything >> more than Planet Earth (well, actually, it could just as readily be >> interpreted as that God having come upon an existing Planet Earth shrouded >> in darkness, and enabled light to reach it, and organized a >> bit of what was going on there), but following that event, God is >> portrayed at acting rather randomly and without consistent temperament, >> which does not at all accord with the level of intellect and power >> apparently claimed by this God or attributed to this God by its followers, >> or indeed seemingly necessary to carry out its claimed Creation.... >> >> The very first sentence of the Bible (surely *this* is not one you > skipped?!) makes it very clear the claim that God created the entire > universe; you'd have to be working hard at it to find a way to make this > ambiguous: > > In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. > Gen 1:1 > > As for your repeated assertion that the Bible portrays God as inconsistent > in His temperament, I'll gladly respond as thoroughly as I'm able when I > have greater specificity with which to work. > > > The homicidal/genocidal bits are, naturally, particularly disturbing, not >> just for their moral questionability (which is, I think, what atheists >> usually go after), but for their inconsistency with such a God's >> omnipresence (which presupposes being able to share in the pain of its own >> victims) and a more general inability, both intellectual and physical, to >> obtain less violent solutions to its problems, which, generally, seem >> self-inflected as well, epitomising either masochism or poor planning.... >> naturally, this is mostly OT stuff, as this God does not really seem to show >> up in the NT, with the pillars of fire and rain of locusts type stuff; >> rather, it reads as though the OT God was defeated and supplanted by a new >> one, who claims to be the same one, but operates a bit more cleverly, if >> with a bit less power with which to do it.... >> >> I'm glad you wrote this paragraph RB, because there's at least something > here with which to work. The reference to 'homicidal/genocidal bits' can > refer to numerous possible passages, but its close enough that I've at least > got an idea what you're alerting to. > > I can certainly see how the instruction to kill others, including entire > people groups, and sometimes entire cities, is potentially disturbing on its > face. I can likewise see how one could conclude that it seems inconsistent > with God's specific commands (Exodus 20; Ten Commandments, et all) to His > people. Furthermore, it will not surprise me if you find my response > unsatisfactory, both because of my limited skills, and because understanding > it better may require a more comprehensive understanding of the teaching of > Scripture, which in truth depends more on an attitude of heart than it does > intellectual capacity. > > To 'make a judgement' about God, let's look at when God did the killing > Himself, rather than further complicate things by introducing the actions of > men (which God may or may not have approved of). We have several references > to work with (The Flood, and those who grumbled against Moses in Numbers 16 > are some examples that immediately come to mind), but for now let's look at > Sodom and Gomorrah; an entire city that was destroyed (actually two cities > that were close enough to be considered the same), unquestionably at God's > hand (raining fire and sulphur). > > Ezekiel informs us that the people of Sodom & Gomorrah were proud, > arrogant, lazy, self-indulgent, intentionally ignorant of the needs of > others, idolatrous, hedonistic, etc. (remember when Billy Graham said "If > God doesn't judge the US, he'll have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah"?). > The Bible tells us that God was responding to the following: "...the outcry > against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous...". But > He didn't do so without warning; He informed Abraham of His plans to destroy > the city. Abraham petitioned God to spare the city if there could be found > even just ten people in all the city that could be considered righteous > (after working his way down from 50), and God agreed. As it happened, there > were not ten people, only Abraham's nephew Lot and his family. But God did > spare Lot and his family by sending two angels to remove them prior to > sending His righteous judgement on the city. > > Contrast this with the city of Nineveh. The people of this city were > equally godless and corrupted by sin as Sodom and Gomorrah. God similarly > sent a messenger to the people to warn them of His impending judgement. The > difference arises in the reaction of those in the city to God's warning. > The Ninevites repented and turned from their sin. Accordingly, God relented > and did not destroy the city. > > > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Redshirt Bluejacket < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> On Mar 30, 3:19 pm, Steve Marriott <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > You can go elsewhere on the Internet to find discussions of what may >> be >> > > deemed inconsistent within the Bible; >> > >> > Indeed I can, but I'm interested in *your *thoughts...therefore I >> > appreciate that you didn't leave it there. >> > >> > > its general characterisation of the capacity of its God is throughout >> > > inconsistent with the actions of its God; it creates the impression >> that the >> > > God of the Bible only mistakenly thinks itself an all-powerful >> Creator, >> > > rather than itself a created being of immense, yet somewhat lesser >> power >> > > than a true and superseding Creator.... >> > >> > Can you give me some examples of actions that appear to you to be >> > inconsistent with the 'general characterisation of capacity'? Perhaps I >> > should ask you to help me understand what you think IS being >> characterized >> > about the capacity of God? >> > >> > It's clear to me that your impression differs from mine, and I'm very >> > interested in the specificity of what has contributed to your >> impression. >> > In advance, I thank you for the time and effort you put into providing >> me >> > with examples that we can investigate together further. >> >> Actually it is difficult to come up with a general characterisation >> because God's capabilities seem to change throughout the book; it is >> never entirely clear what they are, but there are instances where the >> power claimed on behalf of Bible God clearly outstrips the power that >> Bible God is capable of demonstrating, except for the singular, >> unreliable example of the Creation account.... even there it is >> unclear whether the God spoken of is claimed to have created anything >> more than Planet Earth (well, actually, it could just as readily be >> interpreted as that God having come upon an existing Planet Earth >> shrouded in darkness, and enabled light to reach it, and organized a >> bit of what was going on there), but following that event, God is >> portrayed at acting rather randomly and without consistent >> temperament, which does not at all accord with the level of intellect >> and power apparently claimed by this God or attributed to this God by >> its followers, or indeed seemingly necessary to carry out its claimed >> Creation.... >> >> The homicidal/genocidal bits are, naturally, particularly disturbing, >> not just for their moral questionability (which is, I think, what >> atheists usually go after), but for their inconsistency with such a >> God's omnipresence (which presupposes being able to share in the pain >> of its own victims) and a more general inability, both intellectual >> and physical, to obtain less violent solutions to its problems, which, >> generally, seem self-inflected as well, epitomising either masochism >> or poor planning.... naturally, this is mostly OT stuff, as this God >> does not really seem to show up in the NT, with the pillars of fire >> and rain of locusts type stuff; rather, it reads as though the OT God >> was defeated and supplanted by a new one, who claims to be the same >> one, but operates a bit more cleverly, if with a bit less power with >> which to do it.... >> > >> > > This is not the same as presuming things to be, in fact, uniquely so >> from >> > > our Creator, >> > >> >> > I've read this like five times, but still don't understand what you're >> > saying. It's ostensibly in response to the quote of 1 Cor 2:14, but I'm >> > having trouble with the connection. >> > >> > Next you say that someone who claims that truth can only be found in >> their >> > chosen text is 'spiritless' (I'm not sure what you mean by that), >> because >> > it's plain to all that all religious texts contain at least some truth. >> I >> > agree that other texts could perhaps contain aspects of truth (reference >> > earlier post: "the most effective lies are perversions of truth"), >> although >> > I disagree with them being 'inspired'...at least not by God. >> > >> >> Simply put, the text you quote for the very purpose that people who >> fail to accept the truth of things reflecting the "Spirit of God" are >> thus "without the Spirit," in much the same breath applies to your own >> failure to accept the truth of other texts which would be specifically >> discounted in your own text if they were untrue, and so, are in fact >> necessarily equally true.... >> >> > > but it is only once the contradistinctions that separate them are >> parsed out >> > > that the true inspired truth may surface >> > >> > I find this an interesting approach to truth identification. Is it the >> > contradictions that you think are the truth? >> >> The truth tends to lie not in what contradicts, but in what is >> reconcilable among all of the texts once the contradictions are >> eliminated, for all else is window dressing applied by the errant >> human mind in trying to comprehend the incomprehensible.... >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "A Civil Religious Debate" group. >> To post to this group, send email to >> [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]<a-civil-religious-debate%[email protected]> >> . >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/a-civil-religious-debate?hl=en. >> >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "A Civil Religious Debate" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/a-civil-religious-debate?hl=en.
