Should we handle victory the way the Christian god decrees?

Did you hear that Intrepid?

Frank wrote:

Let me take the three you just posted:

Quote:
Jud 15:19
But God split the hollow place that is in Lehi so that water came out of it. When he drank, his strength returned and he revived . Therefore * he named * it En-hakkore, which is in Lehi to this day.


There is absolutely no indication that the god is on the scene...

So then...who split the rock???

Frank wrote:

...but beyond that...we are in the midst of absolute carnage in the name of the god. Over a thousand men died in the passages immediately preceding this particular line...in what Samson says was done as a servant of that god. The god is being thanked for the "great victory"...which includes the carnage. And supposedly...some water comes on the scene for Sampson to drink...as a result of his prayers.

How the hell does this show love for humanity? How the hell can you suggest that there is not killing being done in the name of the god? What are you thinking about?

Frank, as the expert on strawmen, surely you recognize the ones you yourself build. The scene was one of God splitting a rock so Samson could drink. Not the activities that occur before or after. And I've already conceded that acts of God (or those that act for God) are not always comprehendable. But I believe your challenge was that the God of the bible was always that way (except once). Giving a thirsty person water via a miracle is not a loving act??? Even you in your stubbornheadedness surely can't mean that.

Frank wrote:

Quote:
Ge 25:21
Isaac prayed to the LORD on behalf of his wife, because she was barren; and the LORD answered him and Rebekah his wife conceived


A woman got pregnant...and the narrator is saying that "god" did it. C'mon, Shock. The god is not on the scene. A woman got pregnant. And the god is being thanked for it.

In any case...how can you possibly suggest that allowing a woman to become pregnant possibly shows great love for humanity?

How can you possible suggest that is not.

Where would humanity be without pregnant women???

The point I'm trying to bring out is that God has demonstrated his caring for individual people and their problems. Now I know you don't believe in a "personal God", but are you suggesting that a God capable of paying attention even to these trivial human concerns is not worthy of worship?

Frank wrote:

And since this line is a part of the Esau/Jacob fiasco...and all the crap that ensued for the two camps as a result...it truly is not free of the "asking others to kill" bit.

But I will grant you this is close.

Pity that a Christian, however, is reduced to showing something like this as an example of the great love the god of the Bible shows for humanity.

I think I'm more than "close"...but thanks anyway. And I'm of the opinion that a God who is able to care for and find time for individuals is far more worthy than one who can't.

Frank wrote:

Quote:
Da 6:22
"My God sent His angel and shut the lions' mouths and they have not harmed me, inasmuch * * as I was found innocent before Him; and also toward you, O king, I have committed no crime."


This specifically mentions that the god is not on the scene. How can you possibly suggest the god is here...when it says that the god is not there...but had sent a messenger?

I'll grant you that God was not "on the scene" but is not the act of sending a messenger an act of a loving God?

Especially when the presence of the messenger is all between a man and several hungry lions?

Or perhaps you are willing to concede God was not "on the scene" during all the Deuteronomy, Leviticus, and Joshua, etc. passages you quote about killing, enslaving, etc., because it was Israelites, not God himself, that actually were doing the killing and enslaving? Or God's messenger (Moses) doing the talking not God himself?

Ball over to you....

Faith is suspending your reason in the service of the supernatural. Some people derive comfort from faith, and as far as I am concerned, that is fine. But don't be so naive as to believe that faith and reason can coexist. They can't. They are a contradiction in terms.

I think you realize you did not meet the challenge...but I guess you will have to claim victory once again...

I don't see that reason is suspended when faith is employed, but rather faith picks up where reason leaves off or reason fails.

Reason only fails when anyone divorces himself/herself from logic.

huh?? So are you suggesting everything can be solved and all questions answered with reason???? This is surely not the right forum for that point of view.

The key here is "unknowable". IMO, I do not think that anything is "unknowable". It may be "unknown" to human beings, because humanity has evolved only so far.

"Faith is suspending your reason in the service of the supernatural..."

Mesquite Wrote:

Quote:

Did you hear that Intrepid?

I would imagine that Intrepid did hear that, Mesquite. But just because I may not agree 100% with Intrepid or others does not mean I do or should discount everything what they say.

And, Intrepid, I have faith that you did not take that comment personally.

Intrepid, The fundamentalist christians forces us to make it a them vs us issue when they would use their religious beliefs to impose them on everybody else through their political activism. Religious belief is okay if they kept it to themselves within the church, but they want to enforce it on everybody that is not religious or believe in other religions. It's them vs us because they don't respect our freedoms of individual decision making. We're not going to sit back and keep quiet if that's what you are looking for. No way, no how!