A fair objection, so allow me to clarify. Because all religions claim personal experience, this personal experience probably isn't a good indicator that any particular deity is the 'right' one. It is possible, as you stated, that they are all experiencing the same deity differently (or that there are multiple deities), but most believers would scoff at this notion.

Certainly not. Nonetheless (and apparently externally unverifiable), there appears to be such a thing as a religious experience in which many humans feel the presence of a god. The same cannot be said of Zork. Though if your particular engagement with an almighty pushes you in that direction please don't attempt to found the Zork religion on it. That seems to be where the trouble begins.

And therein, as they say, lies the rub. I would assert that people would feel Zork's presence if only they only truly believed in him (you may of meant the same thing, dunno).

I want to apologize for some past observations that I made in this thread, relating to people that do not believe in God and also have no belief that there is proof of a God existing. I, myself, at one time, having had these same thoughts, presumptuously made the mistake of thinking that anyone being in the same situation as myself would automatically need, what I required.

My actions were intended to be caring and honorable.

Without going into too much detail, having a troubled childhood, I let my emotions sway my objectivity. I should have related my advice to my own personal past experience's and not directed it at anyone here. However, strange as it might sound, things got so bad for me, that I had nowhere to turn, but God. So I would recommend to anyone to try and search for God in different ways, such as, what people are doing in this forum.

Sincerely PTL

See Lamentations, particularly verse 3:31-33:

1 For no one is cast off
by the Lord forever.
32 Though he brings grief, he will show compassion,
so great is his unfailing love.
33 For he does not willingly bring affliction
or grief to anyone.


Or Ezekiel 18:30-32:

30 “Therefore, you Israelites, I will judge each of you according to your own ways, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall. 31 Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, people of Israel? 32 For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live!

We all can be prone to hyperbole, don't sweat it.

Yes, but I think it's very unlikely. But these type of questions to me are meaningless. If we are pondering the possible existence of some unknown to us and untestable to us object/being then my answer doesn't really bring anything to discussion. You would receive this type of answer for any other question about fictional/unknown to us things. Do I think it's possible for flying cows to exist? Yes... Flying elephants? Yes... You see the problem?

The more important question would be. Do I believe in existence of some type of God a theist is proposing. Who cares about possibilities we know nothing of?

Splendor, what do you think of these verses also from Ezekiel (20: 24 et seq)?

"24. because they had disobeyed my laws and ignored my teachings; they had disgraced my Sabbath and worshiped the idols their ancestors had made. 25 I gave them laws that bring punishment instead of life, 26 and I let them offer me unacceptable sacrifices, including their first-born sons. I did this to horrify them and to let them know that I, the Lord, was punishing them."

This notion that God would allow the sacrifice of children is so horrific to modern sensibilities that many versions of the bible simply edit the specifics out. So much for a loving and caring God or inerrancy for that matter.

ALTER2EGO -to- JWA4894:

Have you read the Judeo-Christian Bible at all? The reason why I ask is because your above statements are erroneous. The Bible contains almost 2,000 accurately fulfilled prophecies--many of them written with specific details. In some instances, they were written centuries before the prophesied events. Archeology and secular history bears out the fact that they were accurately fulfilled.

It is because of the accurate fulfillment of Bible prophecies that one is able to recognize the finger of Jehovah God. No other religious book of any other type of religions can present evidence of Divine authorship. That is what makes the Judeo-Christian Bible unique.

AUGIE_ -to- ALTER2EGO:

Don't pretend you've read any other religious books.

You would think that with 2,000 fulfilled prophecies someone would of been able to give one for the thread Name 5 prophecies that the bible made that have been fulfilled.

ALTER2EGO -to- ROCKFSH:
Obviously, I am not Splendour, but I take exception to your wrong and slanderous interpretation of scripture. You've got it completely twisted with the verses you quoted above from Ezekiel chapter 20. You are using an English translation of the Bible that is blunderous aka completely erroneous. Those verses are telling the ancient Israelites that Jehovah God rejected them. Why? Because they were offering their children to Baal, during which they were burning their children to death.

From the wording used in your blunderous translation, it gives the impression God is telling the Israelites to go ahead and do the exact opposite of what he's condemning them for: sacrifice their children by burning, in order to "horrify" the Israelites.

Below is the same verse 26 from several other Bibles, which accurately translate it. Keep your eyes on the words in bold print, as I will comment on them after I get through listing a few translations of the verse.

"And I would let them become defiled by THEIR gifts when they made every child opening the womb pass through the fire, in order that I might make them desolate, in order that they might know that I am Jehovah." (Ezekiel 20:26 -- New World Translation)


"and I pronounced them unclean because of THEIR gifts, in that they caused all their firstborn to pass through the fire so that I might make them desolate, in order that they might know that I am the LORD."' (Ezekiel 20:26 -- New American Standard Bible)


"And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that THEY caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the LORD. (Ezekiel 20:26 -- King James Version)



"I let them dishonor themselves when THEY sacrificed all their firstborn sons as gifts [to their false gods]. I terrified them so that they would know that I am the LORD.'" (Ezekiel 20:26 -- GOD'S WORD Translation)


Notice the portion of the verse that I bolded from each of the four Bibles listed above. It indicates that because the ancient Israelites engaged in Baal worship--during which they burned their children to death--God pronounced them defiled (NWT), unclean (NASB), polluted (KJV), and dishonored (GWT).

Not only that. Look at the words that are underlined. Whose idea was it to do this thing? It clearly identifies the guilty party as THEY, THEIR -- meaning the rebellious Israelites.

Thanks for the link. I skimmed that article, so an even better version of divine command theory could be the "Hashem-completion" ( apologies for math-lingo ) of modified command theory. I also agree with Adams that if it were possible that Abraham could carry out the command and did actually sacrifice his son Isaac, this act would be immoral. I also believe that Abraham did think it would be immoral for him to actually follow through as well by the subtext of the passage: in verse 8, Abraham, in response to Isaac's question states:

'G-d will provide Himself the lamb for a burnt-offering, my son.' ( This can be read in more than one way! )

Thus, a common theological understanding is that just as Hashem had shown to Abraham that the righteous did not perish with the wicked in the destruction of Sodom, Abraham expected 1) Hashem would raise the dead ( Heb 11:17-19 ) ; 2) Hashem would provide a substitutionary sacrifice; and 3) that there was something significant Hashem would show him - indeed it was that in the future, Yeshua, as the very "Son of G-d" would be a righteous "sacrifice" for the sins of mankind ( Yeshua states that Abraham was shown this and was quite glad! ).

To do justice to comment on the Akedah in relation to morality would take thousands of words, especially in light of Yeshua HaMashiach through the "Spirit of Truth".


As for these "genocides", we don't know the extreme of human depravity that existed in the "religious rites" of the people involved. It seems as though whatever means ha-satan uses to destroy the dignity of humanity, Hashem somehow uses the same means as a counterpoint in the epic battle for the salvation of mankind: 1) sacrifice of sons in "religious rites" - with the counter that Hashem sacrifices his very own Son for all of mankind; 2) the death of the righteous Abel by his brother Cain - Yeshua dies at the hands of his "brothers", the Jewish people, but only to fulfill the plans of Hashem; 3) the drinking of human blood and eating of human flesh is countered by believers taking the elements of the Eucharist, a symbolic rite acknowledging the flesh and blood of "Christ" and what they represent. Arguably, almost everything points to the Mashiach and the question "What is the point?" can often be answered when considering who Yeshua is in light of the "Spirit of Truth".

That's not even the end of how limited human understanding is concerning sin ( or how some humans misunderstand the working of the "Spirit of G-d" ): unsettling to many, according to the book of Acts of the Apostles, both Ananias and Sapphira lied to the Ruach HaKodesh and that was enough for Kefa ( "Peter" ) to speak words of truth to each of them ( at different times ) and both died immediately.

Sin leads to death, but by the "grace of G-d", the punishment is usually not immediate. The greatest gift of "G-d" is the life offered through Yeshua HaMashiach ( "Christ Jesus" ) simply based on complete trust and not any "moral works" before accepting this gift, so that no human being can boast.

and once again you don't answer my question or even say anything relating to it, but spout your proselytizing instead.

It comes down to this - all of the believers in this thread point one way when spouting their "proof": the bible.

It's classic circular logic and why every single thread in SMP is ultimately useless.

You will never be satisfied it seems with an honest answer.

Instead you want to control the conversation then berate people.

You said:

"If God's definition of "evidence" is different than those of here on Earth, then how do you know everything else he says doesn't mean something completely different, as well?

Maybe "love thy neighbor" really means "dogs are good eatin'"

In other words, if God's definitions of words are different than ours, we have no idea what it is he's actually trying to say. And therefore, the bible is meaningless."-end quote


You said "Maybe "love thy neighbor" really means "dogs are good eatin'".

That is a very strange comparison.

Imo the bible has levels built in it to accomodate spiritual growth. What a 5 year old needs to get from it isn't what a 15 year old needs or a 55 year old or an 80 year old.

Instead of asserting God is unintelligible try learning about the levels in it. It's possible only people that read the bible regularly would pick up on it. Though others might from reading cross commentaries and bible scholar explanations of it.

I'm not the one asserting God is unintelligible - you are. You said:

There are many kinds of evidence in the world.

You're the one who's determined you get to set the criteria on it.

God could have a totally different set of criteria.

When you postulate that last line, you also postulate that God's word can be essentially meaningless to us, since we can't understand it. If God has a totally different set of criteria than we do, then how do you know what he is saying means what it does to us?

You just don't get it because you are so lost in your delusion. You can't see the logical fallacies and absurd claims for what they are. You keep pointing to a 2000 year old book of fables as an actual guide to living in the modern world! It's a ridiculous notion.

Alter2Ego
In most of those translations, God allowed them to sacrifice their first born sons in order to punish them for their disobedience and to let them know HE was in charge. Also if child sacrifice was such an abomination, why would God command Abraham to kill his son?

Compare the same verse from the English Jewish Bible.

24 because they hadn’t obeyed my rulings but had rejected my laws and profaned my shabbats, and their eyes had turned toward their fathers’ idols. 25 I also gave them laws which did them no good and rulings by which they did not live; 26 and I let them become defiled by their own gifts, in that they offered up their firstborn sons, so that I could fill them with revulsion, so that they would [finally] realize that I am Adonai.

How do you know which translation is correct?

AUGIE_ -to- ROCKFISH:

The correct translation is the one which her church leaders tell her is the correct transition. Asking ALTER2EGO how she knows something is like asking a piece of paper how it knows what's written on it.

I have a fairly simple belief about this issue. Genocide is immoral (and no need for the quotation marks--the deliberate killing of an entire race or ethnic group as described in 1 Samuel and Joshua is practically textbook). I also think it is shameful when people make excuses for those who commit genocide, whether by speculating about the immorality of those murdered (think of how common a trope this is with regards to the Holocaust or other twentieth century genocides). While I am doubtful that the events described in those books actually happened, if they did, then they were immoral actions of the worst kind.

Sin might lead to death, but that doesn't mean that we as humans (rather than God) thereby have the right to enforce that penalty.

The one you have ( by David Stern ) is likely a better translation - the original was in Hebrew and Stern was Jewish.

I believe asd was talking about empirical evidence.

Why are you confusing this with exegesis?

The new world translation was discredited in court.

I'm unsure how this even came up in court, but in any event, do you have a link?

ALTER2EGO -to- ROCKFSH:
You just quoted the English Jewish Bible which correctly reflects what was said in the four Bible versions I gave you a short while ago. This one is correct as well. The first one you presented gives the impression that God told the Israelites to commit the dastardly deed of sacrificing their children in fire, in order to "horrify" them.

ALTER2EGO -to- ROCKFSH:
Your objection seems to be that God should not have stood by and allowed this to happen, and therefore God is guilty of the wrongdoings that humans--of their own free will and volition--choose to commit.

You seem to be suggesting that allowing people to do what they're going to do is the same as God ordering them to do it. Jehovah God has been allowing people to do all sorts of wrongdoings for the past 6,000 years of human existence--ever since the rebellion of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

When the first two humans rebelled, they basically told God to stay out of their affairs and not tell them what to do. That's what Jehovah has been doing for the past 6,000. He has stepped back temporarily to let humans self-rule without him interfering. So don't come up here complaining about God not intervening for humans who rebelled against him from the get-go. He gave humans what they wanted--independence. He will intervene on behalf of all humanity at his own appointed time.