re: Amazon Prime new cartoon retells the creation story

quote:

---

Hank? Is that you? No one runs circular arguments like that guy.

---

How is me reminding you of what your own argument was me making a circular argument?

quote:

---

Don't be. Adult humor doesn't quite get the same reaction as this does.

---

This is adult humor, though. Your critique, again, was how it looked like a Saturday morning cartoon. Yeah, well, so does Family Guy.

quote:

---

Opinions and beliefs different than yours sucks don't it?

---

Not really. The difference between mine and yours is that I'm being more consistent. You don't like this adult cartoon and are inventing reasons why it's bad.

"I don't care that it's TV-MA, the adult cartoon looks cartoonish!" Idiot.

quote:

---

So if “die this very day” doesn’t mean dying this very day literally, but allegorically, what other parts of Genesis chapters 2-3 are allegorical versus literal? Is the serpent an allegory? Is creation of woman from Adam’s rib allegory?

---

You need me to interpret Genesis for you? Or just in general because massive studies are done on this. You and I are not bible scholars, although it is a powerful thing of note that there is such a massive effort to know this "work of fiction" by believers and non believers alike. It's coded in a way that really seems to just distract. Wish it were more lament but it ain't. In the end it's by faith in Jesus we are saved.

TLDR, I really don't want to get tied up in Genesis for the rest of the day.

quote:

---

I posted on thus “died spiritually” nonsense argument already in this very thread and posted a link to some Jewish Rabbinical sources who state that there is no afterlife in the Torah. The people who wrote the Torah believed dead was death, and that the breath of life (the spirit) was locked in to physical life, that if one’s spirit “died” they they were physically dead

---

Ok and that makes sense to you? Why be clean or make offerings if you just die and then nothing? Why not just "do as thou wilt"? Live as a beast. Who cares right? Know what that sounds a lot like?

Besides Enoch was never mentioned as dying, he just went to be with the Lord. Sounds afterlify to me.

Edit: I think I misunderstood. Are you saying that they maintained cleanliness so that the could live until natural death? Or killed?

quote:

---

The people who wrote the Torah believed dead was death, and that the breath of life (the spirit) was locked in to physical life, that if one’s spirit “died” they they were physically dead.

---

Link to Moses saying that. It wouldn't change anything either way, I'm just curious.

quote:

---

The entire purpose of flooding the world was to erase the high levels of wickedness from the world.

---

Not only. We only this simple reason because of what God tells us. We don't know the full scope of what that event means for us. As a story as an allegory. As a warning. It is far more than "Man evil, God flood earth." You believe it is that simple, but it isn't.

quote:

---

It is very much the case that lots of children that die young would have grown up to be hell bound adults.

---

Again, too simplistic of a view. You have no idea if they would be them. You have no idea if those souls were chosen specifically for that purpose or not. You can't know for sure that answer at all.

quote:

---

What else do I have at my disposal to make sense of the world?

The Bible? If I don't have knowledge of the how's and mights how can I verify the Bible is a good guide?

---

The Bible is one part, but it isn't the only part.

quote:

---

while God couldn't have stopped the drunk driver's actions without tampering with their freewill,

---

Now you're getting somewhere....

quote:

---

he could have created a system where no such thing is possible.

---

Which, very specifically, would not be free will. That's the entire point. The fundamental choice of freely choosing God is everything. And you have to then look at those circumstances, and everything that has lead to this, this moment, this world through that lens.

quote:

---

So why should I assume there's a good answer beyond my field of vision?

---

Well that's what faith is.

quote:

---

We don't know because we cannot see.

---

Yes.

quote:

---

You're just assuming there's an explanation

---

It's not assumption. The dichotomy isn't knowledge or assumption. Belief is a whole other thing.

quote:

---

I'm choosing to operate on the facts I have.

---

You're haphazardly relying on "facts," divorced from meaning, reality, etc. and assuming that nothing else matters in the equation. That you have all of the knowledge as it is. And that you have a complete picture...

What does that sound like?


ETA: The fact that you use "field of vision" should tell you everything you need to know about your level of certainty in your take of the world. It's all about "sight" for you, and the phrase itself implies that there are lots of things, you admit, that are out of your field of vision (even down to the physical reality of what quarks and beyond are comprised of... you have no clue). Yet you want to say "this thing over here" is 100% wrong, yet you yourself admit to not having the full picture.

Sorry to jump in, but this caught my attention:

quote:

---

You're putting some kind of simple moralistic proof statement in front of belief in God, rather than taking the journey of saying, "I don't understand that event, but If I believe in God, and I believe he is all good,..." and going on that path.

---

Not all of us were indoctrinated as children, so we don't automatically start at the premise, "God exists and is good" to be able to "go from there".

Personally, I don't believe that God is good or evil, and that those are just constructs of man in order to try to understand and categorize the world around him. I also believe it's the dogmatic religions that inhibit further developing our understanding of and relationship with God.

quote:

---

Well now you've said either God doesn't exist (your original premise, right?) because millions of children died in the flood, or if God exists, and because millions of children died in the flood, then he enjoys suffering.

---

No.

My original stance in this thread was that it was ironic that Christians were upset that a cartoon was being made that painted Lucifer in a neutral light (showing the goods and bads he's caused) when the Bible exists and completely white washes God's behavior, so much so that people still worship him even though he's a child killer.

My tongue in cheek comment about God potentially enjoying suffering was aimed at showing you what other things could lay beyond our field of vision. Your assuming there's good reason for this sort of behavior beyond our field of vision, but there could very well just be bad reasons too. Why is one more likely than another?

quote:

---

You're entire has been that you do know.

---

I know what's within my field of vision, yes.

I know the Bible claims God flooded the earth.
I know children died in this global flood.
I know most Christians believe if children die young enough, that they go to Heaven.

My comment that "the point is we don't know" was aimed at what lays beyond our field of vision. I'm fine leaving that area untouched, because we don't know what's there. You want to assure me that there's a good reason hidden beyond our field of vision. Sure, it could be. And it could be the case that an equally bad reason hides beyond our field of vision.

In short, it's an ineffectual argument.

quote:

---

Depends on what you mean by "negative."

---

Things like suggesting that God enjoys suffering. Even though that could lay beyond our field of vision, you won't accept it. So why should I accept whatever good reason may beyond our field of vision?

quote:

---

...but it isn't if God's justice and mercy are perfect - which they are.

---

Speaking of dichotomies, mercy is the suspension of justice, and therefore God cannot be perfect in both.

quote:

---

I never said abandon your thought processes. I said don't rely so much only on the things you know and see. Even if you leave open the possibility that God exists to yourself, that almost specifically means there has to be something "beyond" this world. Beyond your field of vision.

---

My thought process is to form conclusions on what I know. You're suggesting that I not do that, but aren't offering up a better alternative. Me just assuming what you want me to assume (that there is a good answer laying beyond our field of vision) is not a better alternative.

quote:

---

You could play this game all day long...

---

Dude, no, stop. Follow this conversation back. You just got done telling me that God couldn't create a different system to solve this child/soul/death/Heaven vs Hell conundrum without tampering with human freewill. (You said "Which, very specifically, would not be free will") I then gave you two ways which he could do that without tampering with freewill. Now your telling me that I "could play that game all day long".

No, you told me it couldn't be done. I just showed you it could be done.

You were wrong.

quote:

---

Ha, I've got news for you....

Adam and Eve were made in God's image, then they craved "to know," and to have mastery over the world, and to selfishly put themselves on God's level....and, well.... here we are.

---

How does this negate my claim that creating humans in adult forms solves the child/death/soul/Heaven vs Hell conundrum issue without tampering with human freewill?

quote:

---

Processes? Mechanics? Faith doesn't determine truth, it reveals it.

---

Stop being difficult.

Determine - ascertain or establish exactly, typically as a result of research or calculation.

Asertain, reveal, obtain, find, know, whatever... Through what processes and mechanics can faith reveal truth.

You want to sell me on faith, sell me on it. Why should I accept anything on faith?

quote:

---

Useless question, really. The whole point of free will, faith, etc. and where we see ourselves today (again referencing what Peter and Matthew get compared to us) is that I can never "logically" get you to God through some mathematical process. Which is the only way, most likely, in your eyes that my opinion can be better. That is impossible for me to do, and impossible for me to pass your mechincal test of God.

---

Oh, I agree. Which is why I chided you on trying to get me to abandon my thought process without offering a better one.

quote:

---

Its a lot of messy words that you are boxing me in with, bad way to argue. It is a belief, not an assumption.

I do know that God exists, I don't just believe. The problem with your field of vision is that you aren't taking into account things we don't "see." Or things that can't be proven. You'd never say that the guy stopping to help an old lady is act of goodness, an act of God's will, even though you can see it. That's what I mean when I say you divorce the "Facts" from reality.

You immediately say that everything that happens that is bad either proves the non-existence of God, or proves that if he exists, then he enjoys watching suffering.

---

There is so much wrong here.

1.) Massive amounts of irony here. You just accused me of using "messy words" and that that's a "bad way to argue". Great job on the clear and concise language.

2.) You said "it's a belief, not an assumption", then immediately went on to tell me that you don't believe God exists, you know it. So what you have is a belief not an assumption, but you also don't believe. Ok, makes sense...

3.) What you have is an assumption, I just showed you the definitions - which you ignored. That's a "bad way to argue", btw.

4.) I would generally classify a man stopping to help an old lady as good. So I don't know where you got that from.

5.) How is you assuming that I don't see acts of charity as goodness evidence that I am divorcing facts from reality?

6.) I never said that anything that happens either proves God doesn't exist or that he enjoys suffering.

quote:

---

That's not what I meant. You thinking you have the power to "figure out" the world, and comprehend it completely is exactly the act of rebellion. Look at Lucifer look at Adam and Eve. It's not the path to go on.

---

You say as you live in a house with electricity, central air, typing away on your keyboard.

You don't worry about "figuring out the world" (i.e., knowledge) unless it conflicts with your religion. Why is that?

quote:

---

You're putting some kind of simple moralistic proof statement in front of belief in God, rather than taking the journey of saying, "I don't understand that event, but If I believe in God, and I believe he is all good,..." and going on that path.

---

Why would you even start off with the assumption that God is all good when he's drowned millions of children?

quote:

---

it can be very dangerous as you no doubt already know.

---

It is a strangely alluring and shiny hook the Enemy employs-appealing to the intellect, our desire to have special inside knowledge, and our innate need for transcendent mysteries.

The toxic esoteric brew is heady, intoxicating, and ultimately spiritually fatal.

So…we pray for the souls entangled in that web.

Good evening, my friend.

quote:

---

Yahweh says that he, Yahweh, will be. Yahweh is the subject.

---

No.. go back and read it again.

1 Kings 22:19–22 (NASB95): 19 ?Micaiah said, “Therefore, hear the word of the Lord. I saw the Lord sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing by Him on His right and on His left.
20 “The Lord said, ‘Who will entice Ahab to go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?’ And one said this while another said that.
21 “Then a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord and said, ‘I will entice him.’
22 “The Lord said to him, ‘How?’ And he said, ‘I will go out and be a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ Then He said, ‘You are to entice him and also prevail. Go and do so.’

So, we see that Yahweh is not the deceiving spirit. The deceiving spirit is one of the host of heaven- presumably one from the left of Yahweh, as the right side of Yahweh is reserved for the good and faithful servants, and the left for the fallen.

quote:

---

Apparently, this is totally made up bullshite. sorry, but this is nowhere in the text.

---

I see your point. Which is why I prefer the term “presumably.” While it is ‘nowhere in the text,’ per se, it is in fact a logically drawn conclusion from a faithful understanding of the overarching narrative that the entirety of scripture sets forth. This is easily adduced by the sheer number of scriptures that speak to Yahweh’s immutable characteristics of holiness, righteousness and His just judgment- as opposed to the mere handful of scriptures that you are twisting out of context, in an attempt to prove a nonexistent point.

quote:

---

Since Ahab wanted to be deceived, Where does it say that? I can’t find it in the scripture.

---

Read the whole chapter. Objectively. Do some research on Ahab- he was the most wicked king in the history of Israel. You should see that Ahab’s desire was to regain control of Ramoth-gilead. Jehoshaphat implored him to seek the word of the Lord. Arab then brings in 400 of his own “prophets.” I imagine the type of people that Joe Biden would surround himself with. Then, Jehoshaphat says, “Is there not yet a prophet of the Lord here that we may inquire of him?” This is tipping you off that Ahab’s prophets are indeed not prophets of the Lord. They are yes men. Hence providing the context for Ahab’s true desires.

quote:

---

You are adopting the idea of someone spouting unscriptural ideas. Why not read and understand the scripture for what it literally says than performing mental gymnastics and fabricating notions that aren’t in the text?

---

But I’m not. While I do agree with the author of the linked article, it’s because I read the scripture and came to the same conclusion.

quote:

---

Then I said, “Ah, Lord GOD, surely you have utterly deceived this people and Jerusalem, saying, ‘It shall be well with you,’ whereas the sword has reached their very life.”

Yahweh says it will be well, but the opposite has happened. Looks like a lie when something is stated as fact and the opposite is or comes true.

---

For this verse, I’m actually ok with the word deceived. It’s important to note, that it is Jeremiah who is perceiving the deception- not Yahweh admitting it. Could Jeremiah be wrong here? Ummm… yeahhhh. Could this be a lesson in how our expectations and perceptions of God’s plan could be wrong? Absolutely. When Yahweh says that it will be well with him, does he say when? I’d be willing to bet that it is well with Jeremiah now, and that God’s promises never fail. One of the key tenets of Jesus’ teaching is that “He who loses his life, for My sake, will find it.” And, to lay up for ourselves treasures in heaven- as opposed to earth.

quote:

---

O LORD, you have deceived me, and I was deceived; you are stronger than I, and you have prevailed. I have become a laughingstock all the day;

---

Here, I actually think that “persuaded” would be a better translation. Mike Winger has a great video on this. You should look him up. He does Q and A livestreams. I think you should engage him.

quote:

---

I don’t want to see anything. I ain’t got no dog in this hunt.

---

Oh yes you do! You absolutely cannot afford to be wrong here. I can. The fact is, that one of us is wrong. I believe it is a fool’s errand, to proclaim with such certainty that there is no God. That is, unless you possess infinite knowledge. Do you? Lol.

quote:

---

I usually don’t check past the first page of responses. I’ll try to remember to go find it and respond.

---

I figured as much. I took quite a while before I replied to your last post in that thread. I figured it just got lost in the plethora of strife-ridden conversations you have. Lol!

quote:

---

Why would you even start off with the assumption that God is all good when he's drowned millions of children?

---

I think we have a much more mortal view of death than God. We only understand the part we see. Fact is, to be absent body is present with the Lord. The soul is the forever. The body has to die.