Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Other than your plainly racist reference to white people,

---

Nothing racist about it. White evangelicals support whipping children - your own words. Do you deny you're a white evangelical?

Quote:

---

as though non-whites cannot be evangelical or spank their children,

---

Who's the racist now?

Quote:

---

You have made it very clear you don't like the God of the Bible.

---

No, but you continue to put words in my mouth. You can't seem to break the habit.

For your information, some passages showing the OT God - like the ones I have posted - are clearly the work of the Hebrew religious establishment of the day. It's very simple to verify this - just compare that OT God in those passages to the NT God Jesus Christ. The two cannot possibly be the same.

Quote:

---

Why not just move on?

---

Easier for you to move on. In fact, it's a mystery why you came here in the first place. You spread nastiness in almost every post you make. Why is that?

Quote:

---

At any rate, I have no idea what any of that has to do with corporal punishment.

---

It has everything to do with corporal punishment. Read my response to paraclete above on the subject.

Quote:

---

There is no greater slaughter and massacre of children taking place than abortion.

---

At least you admit that great slaughter and massacre took place. That's a start. The greater mistake you make is to quantify murder. One murder is as a thousand murders.

Quote:

---

As to "choice", why wouldn't God simply say He is exercising His choice? If a woman can choose to kill her innocent, unborn child, and you say you support that option, then why can't God choose to kill? Does anyone have any greater authority to do so than God? Why do you exercise such a double standard???

---

This is one of your most revealing paragraphs so I left it just as you wrote it to include everything.

Boiled down, your position is that God is justified in murdering his creation because a woman has an abortion. Interesting backward thinking.

It begs the question of why God is going around murdering his people in the first place. You claim God has a choice to murder since he's God. Thankfully, this notion of God as an All-Powerful bully in the sky is receding except for certain groups like the white evangelicals. It is not hard to see how Trump reflects this notion, even to a Golden Idol in his image.

Whether or not God told ancient man it was okay to engage in genocide is dubious at best but it sure benefited the ancient politicians to have God on their side and sanction such actions in his name. History shows that happens a lot depending on whose talking to God.

Human self interest cannot be discounted.

Quote:

---

White evangelicals support whipping children - your own words. Do you deny you're a white evangelical?

---

I've never said white evangelicals support whipping children, so that's another, shall we say, "misstatement" of yours?

Quote:

---

just compare that OT God in those passages to the NT God Jesus Christ. The two cannot possibly be the same.

---

And again, read Mt. 25. Your eisegesis is all too apparent.

Quote:

---

You spread nastiness in almost every post you make. Why is that?

---

Correcting your errors is not "nastiness".

Quote:

---

For your information, some passages showing the OT God - like the ones I have posted - are clearly the work of the Hebrew religious establishment of the day.

---

There is not a shred of evidence to support that idea. It's simply the work of your own prejudiced imagination. The Bible does not agree with you, so the Bible must be wrong?

Quote:

---

Boiled down, your position is that God is justified in murdering his creation because a woman has an abortion. Interesting backward thinking.

It begs the question of why God is going around murdering his people in the first place. You claim God has a choice to murder since he's God. Thankfully, this notion of God as an All-Powerful bully in the sky is receding except for certain groups like the white evangelicals. It is not hard to see how Trump reflects this notion, even to a Golden Idol in his image.

---

My position is two fold. 1. To claim that God is guilty of massacring children while at the same time being a firm supporter of the greatest massacre and slaughter of children in our present time (abortion) is just foolish. And your attempt to justify your position as being one of supporting the right of women to choose to have their unborn baby killed while denying that God has a right to choose is plainly absurd. 2. If God does it, then it is right simply because He does it. Being God, He is always right since His nature is ultimate perfection. So if God takes your life today, He will owe you no explanations and you will have no opportunity to question Him. He could not possibly care less if you don't like it or do like it. It makes no difference. Nor does it matter if you consider His actions to be moral or immoral. At the end of time, you will not be judging Him; He will be judging you. And the same, of course, is true for me and for all of us.

Right or wrong whupping kids is up to the parents under limits of the law, regardless of whatever religious affiliations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Whether or not God told ancient man it was okay to engage in genocide is dubious at best but it sure benefited the ancient politicians to have God on their side and sanction such actions in his name. History shows that happens a lot depending on whose talking to God.

---

That is EXACTLY the point !!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I've never said white evangelicals support whipping children, so that's another, shall we say, "misstatement" of yours?

---

So you're NOT a white evangelical? Cudda fooled me. You definitely support whipping children - that's not in dispute.

Quote:

---

And again, read Mt. 25. Your eisegesis is all too apparent.

---

Been there. Done that. Your Mt. 25 is your premise for claiming Jesus is a monster God who likes genocide. Think about it.

Quote:

---

Correcting your errors is not "nastiness".

---

Nastiness is nastiness. We can all recognize it, no matter how much you deny it. Your definition won't fly.

Quote:

---

There is not a shred of evidence to support that idea.

---

The evidence that the Bible passages in question are the work of the Hebrew writers and priestly class is right there in plain Hebrew for all to see. The evidence is overwhelming even if you refuse to see it. Your white evangelical position is an old one and is being revisited by exegetes. Time for you to get on board.

Quote:

---

The Bible does not agree with you, so the Bible must be wrong?

---

Wrong - again !! The INTERPRETATION of the Bible as you interpret is wrong - the Bible is what is it is.

Quote:

---

My position is two fold. 1. To claim that God is guilty of massacring children while at the same time being a firm supporter of the greatest massacre and slaughter of children in our present time (abortion) is just foolish. And your attempt to justify your position as being one of supporting the right of women to choose to have their unborn baby killed while denying that God has a right to choose is plainly absurd. 2. If God does it, then it is right simply because He does it. Being God, He is always right since His nature is ultimate perfection. So if God takes your life today, He will owe you no explanations and you will have no opportunity to question Him. He could not possibly care less if you don't like it or do like it. It makes no difference. Nor does it matter if you consider His actions to be moral or immoral. At the end of time, you will not be judging Him; He will be judging you. And the same, of course, is true for me and for all of us.

---

I will leave this as is for all to read.

It is a perfect statement of a primitive belief that sees God as a mixture of Santa Claus and the nastiest, toughest kid on the block that nobody messes with. Jesus Christ dispelled this notion but, then as now, many didn't get it. Here's what you need to do: drop the OT and Paul for a while, THROW AWAY REVELATION (it has done harm to you white evangelicals), and read the Gospels with a view to understanding. You'll be amazed at what it will do for you.

Quote:

---

So you're NOT a white evangelical? Cudda fooled me. You definitely support whipping children - that's not in dispute.

---

This was your original lie. "White evangelicals support whipping children - your own words." I never said anything about white evangelicals at all, and certainly not in connection with corporal punishment. Now you are compounding your lying. It just never ends.

Quote:

---

Your Mt. 25 is your premise for claiming Jesus is a monster God who likes genocide.

---

So now it's MY Mt. 25? Well, it's just another lie. I've never claimed that, "Jesus is a monster God who likes genocide." Have you no honesty at all? I realize your reasoning is embarrassingly bad, and your evidence is completely missing, but that doesn't justify this level of lying.

Quote:

---

The evidence that the Bible passages in question are the work of the Hebrew writers and priestly class is right there in plain Hebrew for all to see. The evidence is overwhelming even if you refuse to see it. Your white evangelical position is an old one and is being revisited by exegetes. Time for you to get on board.

---

Yes. The evidence is so abundant that you can't point to a single shred of that evidence. Asking me to believe you just because you say it evaporated with the Aquinas incident.

Quote:

---

I will leave this as is for all to read.

---

What??? You're not going to lie about it? Well then, at least that is some progress.

Quote:

---

read the Gospels

---

I've tried to get you to read Mt. 25 with no luck at all. You can also try Mt. 3:7; 10:28; 12:36&42; 5:30; 11:24, John 5:22; 3:18,19. What you clearly are not doing is reading the Gospels. If you were, you would see your preconceived, unbiblical positions are incorrect.

But since you claim, I suppose, to be familiar with the Gospels, let me issue a challenge. Show us in those Gospels the places where Jesus said that there will be no day of judgment coming. Don't prattle on with your usual remarks. Step up and show us all where those passages are. Quote them and give references. At least that would be some point of reference for discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I've never said white evangelicals support whipping children, so that's another, shall we say, "misstatement" of yours?

---

I grew up in a very conservative (now with the stolen adjective, "evangelical") white world in the South, surrounded by Lutherans and Southern Baptists. The best way to raise kids, it was believed, was to whoop them after each offense.

Quote:

---

I grew up in a very conservative (now with the stolen adjective, "evangelical") white world in the South, surrounded by Lutherans and Southern Baptists. The best way to raise kids, it was believed, was to whoop them after each offense.

---

I've never been exposed to that so I can't comment on it. I do think this constant reference to whites is unproductive. I can assure you that non-whites paddle their kids. Why so racially divisive? Is that the liberal dem strategy at work in you?

Quote:

---

white world in the South, surrounded by Lutherans and Southern Baptists.

---

I know you don't seem to realize it, but there is so much ugly prejudice in that statement that it's startling. Racial, religious, and regional prejudices seems to really attract you. It certainly cannot be said that prejudice is reserved for conservatives, can it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I've never been exposed to that so I can't comment on it. I do think this constant reference to whites is unproductive. I can assure you that non-whites paddle their kids. Why so racially divisive? Is that the liberal dem strategy at work in you?

I know you don't seem to realize it, but there is so much ugly prejudice in that statement that it's startling. Racial, religious, and regional prejudices seems to really attract you. It certainly cannot be said that prejudice is reserved for conservatives, can it?

---

Apparently, you weren't alive in the South in the 1940s and 1950s. Everything was white, almost total segregation. The only time Black people were seen was as childcare workers ("mammies") for a white family, as groundskeepers and garbage collectors, as gas station attendants, or as railroad employees. On Sunday evenings, the Blacks set up tents in empty fields and had their church services. We could always hear the joyous Gospel singing coming from the field behind our house.

I'm prejudiced? No. That was the world I grew up in. There was no reason to be prejudiced; the world I lived in world was white. Beginning in the 1960s, God blessed me with eyes that are color blind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

This was your original lie. "White evangelicals support whipping children - your own words." I never said anything about white evangelicals at all, and certainly not in connection with corporal punishment. Now you are compounding your lying. It just never ends.

---

I note you didn't deny that you're a white evangelist. I told you where to find the corporal punishment connection. You refused to look at it. Your replies pretty much consist of calling me a liar. Not much of anything else re the issues.

Quote:

---

So now it's MY Mt. 25? Well, it's just another lie. I've never claimed that, "Jesus is a monster God who likes genocide."

---

You admitted that Jesus approved of the OT God committing genocide. Let me ask again - Did Jesus approve of God slaughtering children and wiping out all humanity except for Noah? Remember there is a record of your statements.

Quote:

---

Have you no honesty at all? I realize your reasoning is embarrassingly bad, and your evidence is completely missing, but that doesn't justify this level of lying.

---

Your "argument" again - consisting of nothing but calling me a liar.

Quote:

---

Yes. The evidence is so abundant that you can't point to a single shred of that evidence.

---

The evidence, shown several times now, is written in the Books of Genesis, Numbers, Exodus, etc. The words describing God are there for all to see. What is it that you cannot see?

Quote:

---

Asking me to believe you just because you said it evaporated with the Aquinas incident.

---

You frequently bring this up. Please provide details for all to see.

Quote:

---

I've tried to get you to read Mt. 25 with no luck at all.

---

Of course I've read it. What makes you think I haven't. I've even quoted it.

Quote:

---

What you clearly are not doing is reading the Gospels.

---

Why would I be recommending you read them if I am clearly not reading them?

Quote:

---

If you were, you would see your preconceived, unbiblical positions are incorrect.

---

Here's your basic problem. To put it succinctly, you and the white evangelicals believe the Bible was written by God. Either by 1) with pen and paper that he sent to earth, OR, 2) dictated to 70+ authors over the centuries, OR, 3) guided those authors as they wrote down what they wrote, OR, 4) sent an angel to earth to look over the shoulder of the writers. (#4 is just a joke - hey, but maybe not).

The real joke is that the Bible was set up and organized by the Catholic Church. The Church that fundies refer to as the "Whore of Babylon" among other epithets.

Quote:

---

let me issue a challenge. Show us in those Gospels the places where Jesus said that there will be no day of judgment coming.

---

LOL !! This is too much. How many times have you issued a "challenge"? How many times have I answered your challenge? EVERY SINGLE TIME ! How many times have you replied to my answer with your own position? NOT ONCE ! You say that my answer wasn't suitable, wasn't an answer, wasn't an answer you liked, etc etc. - all the time refusing to provide your own answer after issuing the challenge. You could look it up. Of course you will say I'm lying. We're accustomed to that answer by now. Once bitten, etc.

You have two positions. 1) I'm lying. 2) Your interpretation of the Bible is infallible.

Quote:

---

I note you didn't deny that you're a white evangelist. I told you where to find the corporal punishment connection. You refused to look at it. Your replies pretty much consist of calling me a liar.

---

Haven't denied or confirmed as it makes no difference. If you don't want your lying to be noted, then try stopping it. If the shoe fits...

Quote:

---

You admitted that Jesus approved of the OT God committing genocide.

---

It seems absurd to me that you really seem to think that Jesus and the God of the OT are separate from each other. Strange belief.

Quote:

---

LOL !! This is too much. How many times have you issued a "challenge"? How many times have I answered your challenge? EVERY SINGLE TIME ! How many times have you replied to my answer with your own position? NOT ONCE !

---

Do you never stop lying? I posted my two point position just a few posts above. If you can find a "challenge" to me that has gone unanswered, then post it here. In the meantime, my challenge to you remains. Everyone here already knows you won't answer it for the simple reason that you can't.

Quote:

---

You frequently bring this up. Please provide details for all to see.

---

Do you really want me to? It was so egregious that I saved it in a word doc. Want me to post it????

Since you asked, here it is.

Athos. I.e., "Extra ecclesiam, nulla salus" (no salvation outside the Catholic Church) was the declaration of the Lateran Council (1204?). It began to be softened by questioning leading to the official position I've stated.

Thomas Aquinas wrote " "The answer to the first argument is that nothing inappropriate follows from acceptance of the fact that everyone is bound to believe something explicitly, even someone reared in the woods or among brute animals; for it belongs to Divine Providence to provide everyone with what is necessary for his salvation, provided that he on his part place no obstruction in the way. For if anyone thus bought up were to follow the guidance of natural reason in seeking good and shunning evil, it must be held most certainly that God would reveal to him even by an internal inspiration those things which are necessary to be believed,

IT PRECISELY SUPPORTS MY POSITION!! That's why I posted it. I thought you might not be able to comprehend the formal language, but I didn't think it was that hard. I was wrong. I underlined to make it comprehensible to you. That didn't work, either.

My reply. Hmmm. Is that the same Aquinas who said this? "Men are bound to that without which they cannot obtain salvation. Now it is manifest that no one can obtain salvation but through Christ; wherefore the Apostle says (Rom. 5:18): "As by the offense of one unto all men unto condemnation; so also by the justice of one, unto all men unto justification of life." But for this end is Baptism conferred on a man, that being regenerated thereby, he may be incorporated in Christ, by becoming His member: wherefore it is written (Gal. 3:27): "As many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ." Consequently it is manifest that all are bound to be baptized: and that without Baptism there is no salvation for men."


This is the relevant Aquinas passage.

Quaestiones Disputatae, "De Veritate," Q. 14, art. 11: Objection: "It seems that it is not necessary to believe explicitly. For nothing should be accepted, from the acceptance of which something inappropriate would follow. But if we accept that it is necessary to salvation that something be believed explicitly, something inappropriate would follow. For someone might have been reared in the woods, or among wolves; and such a one cannot know explicitly anything of faith, so that thus there would be a man who would necessarily be damned-which is inappropriate; hence it does not seem to be necessary to believe in anything explicitly."

Response: "The answer to the first argument is that nothing inappropriate follows from acceptance of the fact that everyone is bound to believe something explicitly, even someone reared in the woods or among brute animals; for it belongs to Divine Providence to provide everyone with what is necessary for his salvation, provided that he on his part place no obstruction in the way. For if anyone thus bought up were to follow the guidance of natural reason in seeking good and shunning evil, it must be held most certainly that God would reveal to him even by an internal inspiration those things which are necessary to be believed, or would direct some preacher of the Faith to him, as he sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10)." It is very clear here that St. Thomas is saying that explicit faith is necessary for salvation, and he asserts in the body of this article that explicit faith in the Trinity and the Incarnation are necessary for salvation. But note: necessary for "salvation," which is not the same as necessary for the state of grace. According to St. Thomas, someone raised in the woods might attain the state of grace first, by the baptism of desire, and then later God would teach him the truths of the Trinity and Incarnation. Thus St. Thomas says above that if someone were to follow natural reason, then God would respond by teaching him the faith. But this implies that there is some act by which the man follows natural reason first, and then afterwards, even if very shortly afterwards, God teaches him the faith, just as Cornelius worshipped God first, and then afterwards God sent Peter.

Clearly, you edited the quote to suit your purposes. You even cut your quote off midsentence since the remainder of the sentence would have damaged your position. "...or would direct some preacher of the Faith to him, as he sent Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10)." It seems to me that you were clearly thinking that I would not bother to check your source.

Athos:

Quote:

---

The evidence that the Bible passages in question are the work of the Hebrew writers and priestly class is right there in plain Hebrew for all to see.

---

Plus, all the translators with their own agendas....

Quote:

---

Plus, all the translators with their own agendas....

---

Two replies to that. First, if we accept that as true, then it basically renders the Bible inaccurate and thus unreliable.

But it's hard to make that charge stick. The time span between the Masoretic text (900 A.D.) and the Dead Sea Scrolls (2nd century B.C.) is about a thousand years. The text has shown no evidence of meaningful changes. The book of Isaiah is a good point of comparison since there are two complete copies of it from Qumran. The text is about 95% identical with most differences due to changes in spelling or copyist mistakes in forming letters. The 53rd chapter especially is remarkably similar with there being, I believe, only one word that is different. So you have to ask that if those translators had so many personal agendas, then why does it not show up in that case?

"Gleason Archer in A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994) states: “Even though the two copies of Isaiah discovered in Qumran Cave 1 near the Dead Sea in 1947 were a thousand years earlier than the oldest dated manuscript previously known (AD [sic] 980), they proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The five percent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling.” For more information and bibliography, see 'Great Isaiah Scroll' in Wikipedia"

Quote:

---

The evidence that the Bible passages in question are the work of the Hebrew writers and priestly class is right there in plain Hebrew for all to see.

---

They are the work of highly dedicated copyists who did that for a living. They were not amateurs. What difference would it make if they were from the "priestly class"? I don't know that's the case, but if so, what changes? Would it be better if the town butcher was doing it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Haven't denied or confirmed as it makes no difference.

---

Are you ashamed of being a white evangelist?

Quote:

---

It seems absurd to me that you really seem to think that Jesus and the God of the OT are separate from each other. Strange belief.

---

Hardly strange. What IS strange that you believe that the OT God and Jesus equally thrive on wiping out humans including all of them during a flood. Doesn't that strike you as strange?

Quote:

---

If you can find a "challenge" to me that has gone unanswered, then post it here.

---

You have it backwards. The challenge came from you which I answered, and you did not even tho you promised to. That's why I pay no attention to your so-called "challenges".

Quote:

---

In the meantime, my challenge to you remains.

---

See above.

Quote:

---

Everyone here already knows you won't answer it for the simple reason that you can't.

---

That's not much of an argument, is it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Since you asked, here it is.

Athos. I.e., "Extra ecclesiam, nulla salus" (no salvation outside the Catholic Church) was the declaration of the Lateran Council (1204?). It began to be softened by questioning leading to the official position I've stated.

Thomas Aquinas wrote " "The answer to the first argument is that nothing inappropriate follows from acceptance of the fact that everyone is bound to believe something explicitly, even someone reared in the woods or among brute animals; for it belongs to Divine Providence to provide everyone with what is necessary for his salvation, provided that he on his part place no obstruction in the way. For if anyone thus bought up were to follow the guidance of natural reason in seeking good and shunning evil, it must be held most certainly that God would reveal to him even by an internal inspiration those things which are necessary to be believed,

IT PRECISELY SUPPORTS MY POSITION!! That's why I posted it. I thought you might not be able to comprehend the formal language, but I didn't think it was that hard. I was wrong. I underlined to make it comprehensible to you. That didn't work, either.

---

For those who wish to delve into the dense post, here is the critical part that was left out.

Aquinas was chastised by the Church to retract what he wrote. He did do by leaving in what he wrote and added the required addendum. No one was fooled, but the Church was satisfied since it had the documentation it required.

To support that position and show it wasn't unheard of, I cited two other instances of the Church doing something similar. One was Erasmus and the other was the well-known instance of Galileo.

Horses (Jl) won't drink if they're not thirsty (for knowledge).

Quote:

---

You have it backwards. The challenge came from you which I answered, and you did not even tho you promised to. That's why I pay no attention to your so-called "challenges".

---

You can't show any "challenge" I have failed to answer, and you can't answer the one I have posed to you. Case closed.

Quote:

---

For those who wish to delve into the dense post, here is the critical part that was left out.

Aquinas was chastised by the Church to retract what he wrote. He did do by leaving in what he wrote and added the required addendum. No one was fooled, but the Church was satisfied since it had the documentation it required.

To support that position and show it wasn't unheard of, I cited two other instances of the Church doing something similar. One was Erasmus and the other was the well-known instance of Galileo.

---

Huh. Strangely missing is any documentation for any of that. Oh well.

Quote:

---

Horses (Jl) won't drink if they're not thirsty (for knowledge).

---

No knowledge from you to drink from. Business as usual. As I have said, I believe nothing you say without documentation. Aquinas kind of did it for me.

Quote:

---

From WG:
I grew up in a very conservative (now with the stolen adjective, "evangelical") white world in the South, surrounded by Lutherans and Southern Baptists. The best way to raise kids, it was believed, was to whoop them after each offense.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I've never been exposed to that so I can't comment on it.

---

You already did comment on it. "A properly administered whipping is a positive not a negative". Remember now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Two replies to that. First, if we accept that as true, then it basically renders the Bible inaccurate and thus unreliable.

---

Far from correct. Not basically, but partially. Certainly when people believe what even then were intended to be moral tales showing a lesson and people today take the stories literally, then today's people are rendering the Bible inaccurately and unreliable.

Quote:

---

But it's hard to make that charge stick.

---

No it isn't. Your cherry-picking below can be matched cherry-by-cherry with far more examples than what is shown here. Also, your comment about copyists is simply wrong. For the most part, they were amateurs. The professional copyists came later.

The most studied evolution of the Bible is the New Testamant from the days of Christ until the first copies (not fragments) are available which was at least THREE HUNDRED YEARS after the events being reported. And at least one translation from the original written language and a complete rendering from the original spoken language.

Quote:

---

They are the work of highly dedicated copyists who did that for a living. They were not amateurs.

---

See above.

Quote:

---

What difference would it make if they were from the "priestly class"?

---

They would be motivated to present their religion according to their own lights and what they thought was best. Thousands of years ago, slaughtering the enemy was an accepted part of tribal/nomadic life. There were also many gods in those days. (See the First Commandment). They incorporated other creation myths into their own. They created tales of their tribe being chosen by a God who led them out of captivity. Even the flood is attested earlier in a foreign myth.