re: This isn’t a great look for the pentagon. They appear to claim Mormons aren’t Christians

quote:

---

Easter Bunny

---

We don’t participate in pagan holidays.

quote:

---

you are saying using divine images is engaging in shite-gods. Because that’s what idolatry means. I’m sure you don’t mean that Yahweh is a shite-god

---

No. Obviously not. I’m saying you can’t worship Yahweh through idols. I’m saying it doesn’t matter if you claim to be worshipping Yahweh through an idol- you’re not. I’m saying that pretending to worship Yahweh, through an idol, is like trying to call your dad with one of these:




I’m also saying that anything that Yahweh commands/instructs to make is not an idol (the Ark of the Covenant, for example; or when He told Moses to put the bronze serpent up on a cross- which has no better explanation than a foreshadowing of Christ’s victory).

quote:

---

This was the standard method of Yahweh worship and invoking Yahweh for a thousand years.

---

By whom to whom? Certainly not from the faithful to Yahweh. I have to ask, are you able to discern between prescriptive and descriptive texts?

quote:

---

Golden bulls, standing stones, statues, figurines, and the ark of the covenant were objects of divine imagery believed to have the power to invoke or channel their deity.

---

One of these things is not like the other. Actually, you can include the stones as separate from the golden bulls and figurines- though they differ from the ato as well. If you look at every instance (we can go through them if you like) of Yahweh-approved worship of Yahweh, leading up to the Decalogue, you see a consistent pattern of altars in sanctuaries and burnt offerings/sacrifices. No idols. In just about every instance (IIRC), the building of the altar and the following sacrifices/worship are directly tied to a specific location where the Living God was encountered.

quote:

---

Do you remember what Yahweh told Moses to put on the ark? Cherubim ring a bell? Last I checked that would violate the strict wording of the commandments. The cover of the ark was called the mercy seat and was considered the throne of Yahweh.

---

So, your position is that Yahweh told Moses to violate the covenant. Hmm. Let’s see what the “strict wording of the text” says.

Exodus 20:4

“You shall not make for yourself a carved image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above or that is on the earth beneath or that is in the water below.”

Wow. That’s pretty all-encompassing. And yet, quite specific. I like how that dovetails off of Dr. Heiser’s Divine Counsel theology. But, I just can’t see how anyone, having been given these very specific commands, would decide to melt all their gold into a bull and call it Yahweh. “You shall not make for yourself” Yeah. I really don’t see how you don’t see that as meaning “don’t build anything to worship me unless I tell you to.”

No offense, but if you can’t see the difference between an idol (the golden calf) and the Ark of the Covenant, from a plain and unbiased reading of the text- that’s a you problem, not a Bible problem.

quote:

---

I’ll take that as an admission that the slaughter of the 3000 and the successive plague were two instances

---

I’ll gladly concede that they are separate and successive events. +1 for you, my friend.

quote:

---

Yahweh’s mass killings of his chosen people.

---

This is a point of contention. What do you think chosen means?

quote:

---

Would a living god do that? Do you consider yourself a loving father? Would you strike dead your child

---

Again you start with a misconception, which makes your position seem reasonable to you. Why do you think that everyone is a child of God?

quote:

---

Would you strike dead your child when the didn’t brush their teeth the instant you told them to

---

What if your child was a grown man, who, of his own free and truly evil will, raped your wife, burned your house down, killed a bunch of your best employees, cursed you to your face and swore your death as he reached for his pistol? I’m sure you’ll say that’s bad analogy and I’ll agree. But so is your poor innocent children routine.

quote:

---

You don’t have to believe in this sick religion. You are smarter than that.

---

I don’t believe in religion. This might hurt some feels but I don’t believe any one branch of Christianity has it all right. But Christ is the common thread that unites all who believe in Him. Religion is about how we treat each other. God doesn’t desire religion. He desires relationship.

quote:

---

This sounds really bad and not well thought out, or maybe I’m not understanding. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe you can explain further?

---

Mistaken identity means your straw man caricature of God; which allows you the perceived freedom from consequences. Your projection is what supports your straw man by projecting the faults and failures of humanity onto a holy and perfect God.

quote:

---

The god character in the bible is one failure after another, constantly involved in evil, states he creates evil, and brags he killed Israelites and made them sacrifice their children in the fire. Brags

---

Seems like a good time to restate the mistaken identity point. Your comment above is a pretty good summation of your misconceptions about God. It’s a caricature that ignores context, denies any responsibility, and seeks to destroy the character of a God who you definitely believe exists. I could address each one of those claims if you want. But I think we’ll see a common theme- you will selectively paraphrase difficult passages from the Bible, while ignoring/missing important context in an overarching narrative and denying any human responsibility (including but not limited to your own). But I’m happy to oblige.

quote:

---

Yeah and you guys are atheists. No one takes this much time to evangelize and argue with non believers.

---

We have an obligation. And, I actually hope to see you change one day. What’s your excuse? It just seems like there are so many more important things that someone who only has a few decades left to live before it’s lights out forever could be doing/ rather than wasting it on a fairytale.

quote:

---

Hey I have a book, that says

---

We know.

quote:

---

Killing is neither objectively right or wrong, but dependent on the circumstance.

---

I took babies out of your quote to prove a point. Or two. This is a true statement. The Bible does not strictly prohibit killing. It prohibits murder. If a policeman justly kills a criminal in the line of duty, he is exonerated. If a criminal kills a police officer while robbing a bank, he is guilty of murder.

In both instances, a killing has taken place. The former, an act of obedience to the law. A judicial killing. The latter, a senseless act of violence. One is right- every time. And the other is wrong- every time. That’s as objective as it gets.

quote:

---

I don’t know where you get the idea of objective morality in the Bible

---

Gods nature and response to humanity in His progressive revelation to us, as according to the ever unfolding mysteries of scripture. Duh.

quote:

---

Hey I’ll watch any 10-15 minute video you want me to watch and if you want, I’ll comment on it.

---

I’ll let you know if I find one that satisfies.

quote:

---

So then you must align with the witnesses of Jehovah on that matter. No divine images.

---

Good one. But it does bring up a point- in that, for you, everything must be a certain way… well, really, no. That’s not accurate. It would be more accurate to say that it must not be this one, particular Way. You seem to be totally fine with anything but Christianity (as you understand it). But I digress.

quote:

---

Yahweh was worshipped with divine images and trinkets for a thousand years throughout Israel, Judah, Edom, and the Sinai. It’s historical fact and not debatable. It’s standard Canaanite worship practice, also not debatable. You can assert that perhaps some didn’t use divine images or some began to reject divine images at some point, and that wouldn’t be baseless.

---

Thanks, I guess? I’m not arguing that it didn’t happen. The Bible says it happened- a lot. Archaeology backs that up. I’m arguing that there is a clear distinction, in every instance, between idolatry and sanctioned worship. Do we need to go over how to tell the difference between descriptive and prescriptive texts?

Do you honestly believe that you’re just letting the text speak for itself and you’re not bringing any presuppositional bias (must be) to your interpretations? Do you really believe that you don’t have an agenda? Do you really believe that I do?

quote:

---

No, my position is that Yahweh and Moses do not and never have existed.

---

So then, why try so hard to destroy His character? I mean, the two don’t jive. “I don’t believe in Santa Claus, but he was a a pervert.” Nah. You have to really hate someone- to put in the amount of work that you do. Have you ever considered that it might all be true- just the way you imagined it, and you’re just actually ‘of your father, the devil?”

quote:

---

But maybe I’ll grant you a win there because I double checked

---

Yeah yeah- nice caveat. FTR, I don’t see us as competing. … psyche! I’ll take it. Thanks. But seriously, I appreciate the challenges you have and do present. I’ve learned a lot because of you. My faith is stronger than ever.

quote:

---

They are both physical instruments of invocation and habitation by their deity, both containing carved or molded images of the things in heaven.

---

The similarities are significant. But the differences make… um … the difference. You keep ignoring hermeneutics and importing your preferred understanding of how things must have been (in order to keep your worldview intact). It seems logical to an atheist that if there are no gods and no real God, then there is no idolatry either, and all worship is the same- effectively worthless. Is that about right? It would explain a little. Not enough though. That would explain a general lack of respect, or reverence. But it doesn’t explain the need to (attempt to) destroy the main character of a fictional book.

quote:

---

See Deuteronomy 32:8-9 where El Elyon, the father of the Canaanite pantheon, gives the people group and land known as Israel to his favorite son Yahweh (aka Baal) when he was diving all the people groups amongst his heavenly sons. El Elyon chose Israel to be Yahweh’s, and his inheritance.

---

quote:

---

See Deuteronomy 32:8-9 where El Elyon, the father of the Canaanite pantheon, gives the people group and land known as Israel to his favorite son Yahweh (aka Baal) when he was diving all the people groups amongst his heavenly sons. El Elyon chose Israel to be Yahweh’s, and his inheritance.

---

Obviously we’re going to disagree on El Elyon and Yahweh being two distinct Gods, but, you’re still missing the question- what does it mean to be chosen, in the context of the OT and NT? I’m not asking your opinion on whether it’s edited, authentic, or inspired. For argument’s sake, let’s grant that it’s not inspired, it is edited, and it’s not authentic. Is it not consistent? Especially if you were to treat it as any other text of its time? Pro tip: it can be as easy or as complicated as you want it to be.

quote:

---

Ah so will you go on the record that JWs and Mormons are Christian?

---

You know, it’s easy to just throw.a blanket theology statement out there. The theology (of which I am not well informed) is incompatible with traditional Christian beliefs (RC/Orto/Pro). And I do believe the general consensus of traditional Christianity requires, at minimum a very high (I would say the highest) Christology. Based on my limited knowledge, both fail to meet the bar. I have seen some Mormons make some very compelling arguments for God. I have not had much experience with JWs. They’re weird. I’ll take the Amish over both.

To be continued…

quote:

---

So then you must align with the witnesses of Jehovah on that matter. No divine images.

---

We know, why do you insist on playing this autistic game? You have to have the last word to convince yourself that you must have won, and that you successfully hid your JW mission.

You have a problem.

quote:

---

No, my position is that Yahweh and Moses do not and never have existed.

---

Again why the game, why not come out and admit that you are a JW.

quote:

---

Ah so will you go on the record that JWs and Mormons are Christian?

---

Because atheists care lol.

You definitely care.

quote:

---

He doesn't care how many cyber doors he knocks on that think he's a fool, he's hunting for those of the weakest faith.

---

This is correct, and it's why i do not engage with him.

When you do, you are providing a platform for him to hunt.

If everyone ignored him, he would eventually go away.

quote:

---

I bet the biggest difference is you see that as a big meanie torturing people for eternity because they didn’t want to be his friend. And I see (what the Bible repeatedly warns) sick people dying because they don’t want the Cure. Again, you’re projecting human faults onto a holy God.

---

Yes he’s a meanie who created the problem in the first place. The firefighter who sets a building on fire simply to be able to put it and save the people inside - those people should be angry, not thankful the firefighter put out the fire. I’m not projecting human faults onto anything much less a holy god, because I don’t believe in that deity.

quote:

---

Maybe you’re oversimplifying it? You’re trying to separate the action completely from the circumstances. It doesn’t work like that. Moral actions don’t happen in a vacuum- they are purely relational. Morality is not a set of rules that you can put into a pdf. It’s not a legal document that can be manipulated and exploited to serve self interest. That’s what you want right? A nice tidy box to put that in, so you can pull it out when you need it, and put it away when it is inconvenient. Morality is like math; in the sense that it can be discovered and repeated, but if you change one factor you get a totally different equation. Is math not objective now? Of course it is. We recognize the difference in the equation. We expect a different result. I would imagine the full scope of all possible moral actions and outcomes as infinite as math, too. But des that make it subjective?

---

Seems like you are crawfishing. I think you are finally understanding though that there is no objective moral standard contained within the Bible, whether you will admit that or not. If killing babies is sometimes morally permitted (Midianite genocide, Amelekite genocide, Jericho, magic abortion potions, dashing Babylonian babies heads against the rocks, etc.) but sometimes prohibited, then the action of killing babies is not objectively moral or immoral. William Lane Craig would agree with me actually, sort of. He claims killing babies is objectively immoral unless God tells you to do it - a divine command. Sick. But this clearly demonstrates the only objectivity is not in the morality of killing babies, but in doing whatever God says at the time he tells you to do something. So that would shrink objective morality into one thing: an action is moral if and only if God tells you so do it at the time it is being done. So you can’t say killing babies is objectively moral or immoral.

quote:

---

We can disagree about where that comes from, but I think it’s foolish and dangerous to follow subjective morality to its end.

---

In reality this is the only type of morality. This is why, if you went to college, you probably took a course on “Ethics” so you would learn how to think and how to analyze the reality of subjective morality.

quote:

---

it's why i do not engage with him. When you do, you are providing a platform for him to hunt.

---

I like hunting, but no one hunts better than the LORD your loving and good God when he is murdering his own chosen people.

quote:

---

7So I am to them like a lion; like a leopard I will lurk beside the way. 8I will fall upon them like a bear robbed of her cubs; I will tear open their breast, and there I will devour them like a lion, as a wild beast would rip them open.

---

quote:

---

Adam sinned and we inherited his guilt.

---

Hmm, interesting.

Let’s look at what “Ezekiel” (another fictional character in addition to Adam) wrote:

quote:

---

19“Yet you say, ‘Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father?’ When the son has done what is just and right, and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live. 20The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

---

So despite the divinely inspired word of God directly quoting the words from God’s mouth that he will not punish the sons for the sins of the father, you’re like “frick that” and you believe what you want to believe because you’ve been brainwashed to believe the dogma of your religious cult.

quote:

---

God sent another to be our representative by faith, and trusting in Him (Jesus) results in the forgiveness of sins and eternal life.

---

None of that shite is real or ever happened in reality. You on here have claimed that God abhors child sacrifice and yet you don’t see the biggest child sacrifice in your religion and you “love” “God” for making the decision to have his son killed. Whackos.

quote:

---

In your analogy, the firefighter didn’t start the fire, but your dad, and you add gasoline to it.

---

Nope, I was clear it was the firefighter who started the fire. In my analogy though, the firefighter is all powerful and all knowing and sees the future and can read the minds of the people in the building.

Foo, let me ask you something based on the mythical tale in which you believe.

Do you think it is fair - it is righteous and good - for Yahweh to punish Adam for his transgression knowing that Adam did not have knowledge of what good and evil were at the time of the sin, also considering Yahweh could read Adam’s mind the whole time?

I don’t need to ask you if it is fair to punish the sons for the sins of the father because you’ve already told us what you believe.

ETA: You like to reject the earliest Christian and pre-Christian scriptures as apocryphal and non-inspired, while cozying up to the scriptures of the Jews - the same Jews who (in your fairy tale) Jesus told them they did not know the scriptures. Did you know the modern Jews today do not believe in original sin or that people are born sinful as a result of Adam?

quote:

---

Let’s look at what “Ezekiel” (another fictional character in addition to Adam) wrote:

...

So despite the divinely inspired word of God directly quoting the words from God’s mouth that he will not punish the sons for the sins of the father, you’re like “frick that” and you believe what you want to believe because you’ve been brainwashed to believe the dogma of your religious cult.

---

Look at verse 19 and earlier in that chapter. This is talking about temporal judgement and God's covenantal dealings with the nation of Israel, not the imputed guilt and unrighteousness from Adam which Ezekiel already assumes as true in chapter 36.

quote:

---

You on here have claimed that God abhors child sacrifice and yet you don’t see the biggest child sacrifice in your religion and you “love” “God” for making the decision to have his son killed. Whackos.

---

You regularly confuse categories and conflate terms, and this is no different.

Self-sacrifice is praised, and it's expected from Christians in various ways, by denying ourselves and living for the good of others. Jesus willingly went to the cross to pay the sin-debt of His people. That isn't the same category as taking your infant son to the fire and throwing them in to appease God (which He isn't appeased by that, anyway).

quote:

---

Nope, I was clear it was the firefighter who started the fire. In my analogy though, the firefighter is all powerful and all knowing and sees the future and can read the minds of the people in the building.

---

I was saying that your analogy isn't actually analogous to what the Bible teaches, so I altered it to better fit. Analogies are intended to express concepts in a way to make them easier to understand, however the analogy has to actually be representative of the actual concept for it to be useful. That's why I changed it, though it is still insufficient (all analogies break down).

quote:

---

Do you think it is fair - it is righteous and good - for Yahweh to punish Adam for his transgression knowing that Adam did not have knowledge of what good and evil were at the time of the sin, also considering Yahweh could read Adam’s mind the whole time?

---

Yes, because Adam did have knowledge of good and evil in terms of the sin he committed. God already told him not to eat of the fruit, and he did it anyway. God laid out the requirements and the punishment for breaking them, and Adam did it anyway. He was culpable, and it was fair for God to punish him for his sin which he knowingly committed.

quote:

---

I don’t need to ask you if it is fair to punish the sons for the sins of the father because you’ve already told us what you believe.

---

It's called federalism; representation. Do you think it's "fair" for one nation to wage war against another nation because that nation's leader did something stupid? That's what always happens: nations go to war with each other and citizens suffer the consequences for the actions of their representatives, even though not each person in the country agrees with those actions.

It goes beyond mere representation, though. Adam was without sin (and without a sinful nature) at the time of his fall, which means he had no propensity to sin like we do. We couldn't do better, so the best version of humanity was representing us and he fell.

That's why Jesus was sent and took on a human nature, so He could do what Adam didn't do. Jesus obeyed the law perfectly where Adam did not, and so Jesus becomes humanity's representative by faith where Adam was our representative by natural generation. That's why it's important for you to believe in Jesus' work on the cross for sinners, so that you will no longer be judged according to Adam's sin (and your own), but according to Jesus' perfect righteousness, imputed to you.