Babel - God invents war - Is god also responsible for sin now?

[Learner]

Why would it? If God 'Himself' is said to be incapable of 'sin' or 'evil' does it mean that God Himself must necessarily have traits like the Stepford wives?

Touché and yes why would it?

No you won't.

lol ok Mr.Higgins one day soon.

 

[Learner]

A well presented post by abaddon.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So.... Your only example of evil is humanity, thus you conclude that evil requires physical, self-aware beings. Your sample set kind of skews your results.


Why are you veering off this way?

I'm asking about your belief that evil requires physical, self-aware beings.

I meant evil would manifest itself in the extremes of an over the top clinging to life self protection,self preservation,self interest,satisfying his or her own physical body.

Ah.
So saying something like, "Anyone who doesn't believe in me, bring them hear and shoot them in the head...where i can watch..." requires satisfying a physical body?

 

[Learner]

Ah.
So saying something like, "Anyone who doesn't believe in me, bring them hear and shoot them in the head...where i can watch..." requires satisfying a physical body?

Ok good point. My take on it is that this coincides with the term: "Temptations and sins of the flesh." God (as understood) is not made of the flesh,or at least of the kind conisisting of earthly elements (moulded from clay). People find 'pleasure' in other peoples sorrowful demise right up to the point of sheer depravity. God tells man there is a better way and it is better to steer away from commiting harmful acts.

 

[Keith&Co.]

God tells man there is a better way and it is better to steer away from commiting harmful acts.

Except when God tells them to kill nonbelievers.
So, which God is to be believed? The God of Luke 19:27 or the God of 2 Chronicles 15:13?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Ah.
So saying something like, "Anyone who doesn't believe in me, bring them hear and shoot them in the head...where i can watch..." requires satisfying a physical body?

Ok good point. My take on it is that this coincides with the term: "Temptations and sins of the flesh." God (as understood) is not made of the flesh,or at least of the kind conisisting of earthly elements (moulded from clay). People find 'pleasure' in other peoples sorrowful demise right up to the point of sheer depravity. God tells man there is a better way and it is better to steer away from commiting harmful acts.

God has told man just about everything, so it is a bit unwise to concentrate on just one of those things in order to put that deity in a better light.

 

[Learner]

Except when God tells them to kill nonbelievers.
So, which God is to be believed? The God of Luke 19:27 or the God of 2 Chronicles 15:13?

Both of these could be seen as warnings to believers, intended for those against God I should think, as harsh as it sounds.

The 2 Chronicles 15:13 They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

Yes it does sort of contradict what God is supposedly to be be all about, according to beliefs. Having said that , I do notice that it says they entered into a covenant to 'seek' the Lord.. It is more sensible (to me) if it were seen as man himself who came up with 'the promise' as their part of the agreement, anouncing with strong hearts and strong convictions as shown here: and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

I guess on a smaller scale, we do this kind of thing everyday, promising something of ourselves by our own words to assert the sincerity of the ageement to the other, showing what we would be willing to forfiet.

 

[Learner]

God has told man just about everything, so it is a bit unwise to concentrate on just one of those things in order to put that deity in a better light.

Ok fair point. I was merely trying to reply to a particular point of a previous question and was the only reply I had at that moment.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Both of these could be seen as warnings to believers, intended for those against God I should think, as harsh as it sounds.

Harsh, yes. And for whatever purpose, the god you say is against violence is, in both incarnations, demanding that nonbelievers be put to death.

It is more sensible (to me) if it were seen as man himself who came up with 'the promise' as their part of the agreement, anouncing with strong hearts and strong convictions as shown here: and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

So, though your source book says that God's the one asking for the deaths, you are willing to rewrite scripture so that it matches your personal beliefs.
Don't take this wrong, but that's very Christain of you.

 

[Learner]

So, though your source book says that God's the one asking for the deaths, you are willing to rewrite scripture so that it matches your personal beliefs.
Don't take this wrong, but that's very Christain of you.

Not at all, but I'll say for the moment this was my interpretation. (was running out of answers )

 

[Keith&Co.]

So, though your source book says that God's the one asking for the deaths, you are willing to rewrite scripture so that it matches your personal beliefs.
Don't take this wrong, but that's very Christain of you.

Not at all, but I'll say for the moment this was my interpretation. (was running out of answers )

And the interpretations you dismiss are OTHER Christains' efforts to understand The Books.

We don't seem to have access to an updated version, a revision, or even a translation approved by God, so all we have are various and conflicting interpretations. By people that pick and choose which parts apply or make sense or fit in with the whole and how they fit.

So it really doesn't make any sense when you discount others for ignoring Jesus' words when you do the same thing, does it?

 

[Learner]

And the interpretations you dismiss are OTHER Christains' efforts to understand The Books.

We don't seem to have access to an updated version, a revision, or even a translation approved by God, so all we have are various and conflicting interpretations. By people that pick and choose which parts apply or make sense or fit in with the whole and how they fit.

So it really doesn't make any sense when you discount others for ignoring Jesus' words when you do the same thing, does it?

Well thats just it. I'm not ignoring Jesus's words. It is easy to follow!

Matt. 22:34-40

37 "'You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.'
38, This is the 'first and great commandment.'
39 And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'
40. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets."

 

[Keith&Co.]

And the interpretations you dismiss are OTHER Christains' efforts to understand The Books.

We don't seem to have access to an updated version, a revision, or even a translation approved by God, so all we have are various and conflicting interpretations. By people that pick and choose which parts apply or make sense or fit in with the whole and how they fit.

So it really doesn't make any sense when you discount others for ignoring Jesus' words when you do the same thing, does it?

Well thats just it. I'm not ignoring Jesus's words. It is easy to follow!

Matt. 22:34-40

37 "'You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.'
38, This is the 'first and great commandment.'
39 And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'
40. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets."

But still, bring unbelievers before me and slay them.

 

[Learner]

But still, bring unbelievers before me and slay them.

Well I certainly won't be doing any of those things.