Yuku free message boards

Daystar wrote:

---

But you are judging Christ and the Bible upon the practice of religion. You example of the 'Good Samaritan' even reveals this.

I don't see how that is validated as a bad argument. I mean, sure many religious followers have never even read the Bible, but do the actions of followers not reflect on the religion itself? The way I see it, it was just pure racism. To translate the entire phrase into modern terminology, "Heal the people I actually care about first then the bastards overseas to make myself look good."

There are only a handful of cases where God, or his representatives on earth cured people, and that was for a reason. If it were actually true that that sort of thing still happened if you were in need of it you would ask for it. Having said that it is also interesting that, even as much as I loath religion and especially modern day Xianity, they are far more organized and even individually more likely to give some assistance to the sick and the poor.

I actually agree with you on that. It's true; nothing fuels a mind to do good like exploiting their fear of death. I sadly don't think that "doing the right thing" is often out of common courtesy. Well, more accurately - in this day and age it is not. Since I have rarely seen any religious scripture preach about helping those who are less fortunate than you, I can assume that there was some hint of good from whomever decided it was a good idea to use religion to campaign aiding the sick and poor, but in this day and age, people are intoxicated, so to speak, under the mindset that this will get them into Heaven, rather than out of the good nature of the human heart.

Daystar wrote:

---

Akito wrote:

---

I don't see how that is validated as a bad argument. I mean, sure many religious followers have never even read the Bible, but do the actions of followers not reflect on the religion itself? The way I see it, it was just pure racism. To translate the entire phrase into modern terminology, "Heal the people I actually care about first then the bastards overseas to make myself look good."

For the most part Atheism is a confused and disorganized response to Christendom. Christendom isn't a reflection of the teachings of Christ, Christ said be no part of the world and Christendom attempts to take the world over. In wars Christians kill Christians. It is political. That is where the complaint is lodged. The case of the Good Samaritan transcended even the boundries of the socio-political scene at that time and so isn't a good argument. Although elsewhere you have stated that translation shouldn't be an important aspect in the entire mess, which I disagree with very strongly, you translate the phrase as "Heal the people I actually care about first then the bastards overseas to make myself look good." There you might have an argument if it were not for the fact that you must now explain the basis of your translation. And if questioning the one who supposedly gave it, you must ask "Why?"

Fair enough argument I suppose, but in my defense, there's a difference between translating from one language to another and translating from one set of vocabulary to a different set of vocabulary of the SAME LANGUAGE. A better word would probably be "clarify," yes. But I didn't except anyone to take me so literally with the word "translation." As for my basis, I thought the quote was pretty straightforward. Describing it is not fit to heal "dogs" or those whom you care less about, meaning the Canaanite. Regardless of the day and age of how the insult was used back in the day, the word "dog" has always been associated with lowlife, scum, etc. etc. Of course he did heal her, for reasons that are subject to debate, but the fact is that he made her wait for she was a "dog," or lowlife, scum, etc. etc. due to the fact that she was a Canaanite rather than a Jew, whom Jesus apparently cared most for.

Think about it this way, even if the word "dog" was used in a different context, is it still sort of mean? I mean, if you were really sick and there WAS a cure, but the only doctor told you, "Okay, wait a minute while I heal these people behind you," wouldn't that be just a tad... mean, to put it in layman's terms? I mean, you were there before hundreds of other people, but for some extraordinary reason, the doctor just didn't feel like treating you at the moment. Yeah, I think I'd be pretty pissed.

But why?

Now you're just acting like a child, continuously asking "why?" until I run into an answer that is so obscurely self-explanatory that it can't be put into words.

Why did the pasta become hot? Because I heated the oven.
Why did you heat the spaghetti? Because I was hungry.
Why were you hungry? Because my stomach was empty.
Why was your stomach empty? Because I hadn't eaten all day?
Why hadn't you eaten all day? Because I didn't have time.
Why didn't you have the time? Because I had various appointments to go.
Why did you have various appointments to go?

etc. etc. etc. etc.

That's basically what you are doing.

Why, you ask? I don't know. You've played the why card too many times to have an answer.

Aside from that, you fail to look at the bigger picture. He made her wait because she was a Canaanite. It doesn't matter WHY. I could murder my cousin because he owed me money, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be any less murder, now does it?

If you killed your cousin who owed you money because he attacked you and you were only defending yourself it would make a difference. It wouldn't be murder it would be self defense. You are tho one who isn't looking at the Bigger picture. That is why I ask why. Even though I already told you why. So I was also seeing if you were paying attention, which you were not because you are too caught up in your own argument, which I also told you ... [heavy sigh]

Yeah, you clearly told me. "I am just right you are just wrong" is suuuuuuuuch a good response and clearly justifies what is right. Except for the fact is that you did NOT. Do you so much as listen to yourself? You have only told me that my translation from English to English contradicts my point that the translation shouldn't matter and the rest barely touches up on the matter at hand. Now your post above demonstrates that you are capable of rational argument and I will give you credit for lying it all out if it wasn't for the fact that you're still not justifying why it was RIGHT, rather giving me reasons as to why it was done. There's a difference between giving reasons and giving justification. It seems to me that you only gave the former in hopes of achieving the latter. [heavier sigh]

But you did do a good job lying it all out and giving a more engaging argument instead of just insisting that you are right.

Abraham was informed to sacrifice Isaac, his only son, when Isaac was 25 years old because God was going to found a nation upon the offspring of Abraham which would bring about the messiah, Jesus Christ. God wanted to make sure that Abraham understood the significance of this and that he was of the mind to accomplish such a purpose. Abraham's mindset in this purpose was necessary in the very accomplishment of it and would be handed down to the generations to come. So, Abraham was willing, as was Isaac, to put their faith in Jehovah God and do this thing, so Jehovah. was as well

But could God not have achieved the coming of Christ WITHOUT sacrificing another? God supposedly doesn't have limitations, even though according to the Genesis that God had to rest during the creation of the earth. Since I know you're just going to give me the definition of God bullshit, from the Webster's dictionary, "A being to whom people pray and is believed to control the world." So if that's the case, surely he could have just as easily arranged the coming of Christ without the aid of a sacrifice. Even if that was the case, would it be worth it? The coming of Christ did not stop the sins of humanity, now did it? I don't care how willing either of them were to be sacrificed; the big picture is that THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO because God could have done without it. The big picture was NOT that he had somewhat of a reason to be sacrificed.

Putting it in perspective. A man has died in an automobile crash and his organs are about to be harvested to save the life of someone in need. Should those organs be given to someone who will destroy them carelessly? Give a liver to an alcoholic who refuses to stop drinking?

Can you honestly compare a sick girl to someone such as that? Do you not think she would change her ways should she have been healed by the son of God Himself? Even if not, does that make their life any less meaningful? From a human standpoint, the answer would be yes, but from God's standpoint, who has the power to change all that shit in a nonviolent manner, the answer would be no.

Over the next 400 years the land of Canaan was one of idolatry, immorality, and bloodshed. Incest, sodomy and bestiality.

Jehovah God instructed the Israelites to give warning before they attacked a city. To give the people the chance to make peace with them (Joshua 11:19, 20) but only one did. The Canaanites did not. God told them to destroy the Canaanites. But they didn't. Just as God had warned they would regret this. ((Numbers 33:55, 56 / Judges 2:1-3, 11-23 / Psalm 106:34-43 Compare Matthew 3:7-12 / 22:1-7 / 25:41-46 / Mark 12:1-9 / Romans 1:18-32 / 2 Thessalonians 1:6-9 / 2:3)

Though at first Jesus didn't heal her daughter for this reason, pointing out what she understood as Canaanite history, she proved to be of a different mindset. One more similar to Rahab. (Joshua 6:17 / Hebrews 11:31 / James 2:25)

So... as you justify my point, it IS racism. What the land of Canaan is KNOWN for and what is actually the case are completely different. You can't honestly tell me that every single Canaanite was guilty of those crimes. A lot of them may be have been victims of the crimes, rather than perpetrators. As you said, Jesus found that she was "of a different mindset." But the fact is that she had to prove it first, which is racism and prejudice. African Americans, for example, are stereotyped to be violent and criminal in nature, as well, but suppose you meet an African American on the street; would you not treat them as equals without the need to prove it? Germans are also subject to stereotype, but as Nazis in this case, but if you were to meet a German on the street, would you automatically assume he was a Neo-Nazi? Probably not. Of course, racial tension back then may have been more severe, but supposedly Jesus was tolerant to all human beings, not just Jews, which as I've already went through is disproven by the very subject of the topic.

THAT is the bigger picture.
You can tell me that you'd planned it all out, but you can't say it honestly because you didn't. I've looked back at your other posts and NONE of them even suggest an explanation other than "You're just wrong and I'm just right."

Unless you were referring to something along these lines-

In wars Christians kill Christians. It is political. That is where the complaint is lodged. The case of the Good Samaritan transcended even the boundries of the socio-political scene at that time and so isn't a good argument.

Which wasn't even a response to the subject at hand to begin with.

There would have been no point in the coming of Christ without sacrifice. Adam sinned, which means he missed the mark. Christ showed that Adam didn't have to sin, he could have lived forever. In a very brief and basic sense Adam sold everlasting life for mankind and Jesus bought it back.

Now does that really sound fair? Sacrificing a descendant to compensate for the actions of an ancient ancestor? Furthermore, since Isaac wasn't sacrificed, then Christ clearly did not need a sacrifice to come back.

God does have limitations. Your not being able to fully understand that creates the problem. God 'rested' so that man would have time to fulfill God's purpose for man, to fill and subdue the earth. Not because he was tired and worn out.

Where does it suggest that? In the Genesis, it states that God "rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made." Which, looking at it now, you are right- It does not specifically say that he was exhausted. But the context of said text may imply such. For example, if you were to say, "Rested after a day's work," that would imply that the person you were speaking of was tired as a result of working that full day's work. So resting "from all his work which He had made" sort of takes it into the same context.

As for God having limitations, I can't really think of anything that proves otherwise aside from the commonly-perceived vision of God, so I'll give you that. The only argument I have against that is the fact that God can create everything on Earth, destroy entire populations, and even restore previous conditions in double quantity. So even if God did have limitations, why should these particular circumstances, of all things, be the limit of His power? But I digress on that for I, again, don't have anything to back it up.

The Bible says that Satan is the God of the world. In the Bible there is a difference between the world and the earth. The world will be destroyed and the earth will last forever. Man, with Satan, controls the world.

Passage Please D:

If that were the case Christ wouldn't have been sacrificed. Christ gives people the opportunity to be a part of the purpose of man to live forever upon the earth in peace. That hasn't happened yet because it isn't time yet. When it is obvious to everyone man will destroy the earth and Adam was wrong and the question is resolved then it will happen.

The way I see it, Christ being sacrificed is just one more cruelty. Again, rather or not God has limitations is one factor, but the fact is that it didn't REQUIRE a sacrifice in order to do so. Using violence to stop violence certainly isn't a very good solution and even in the end, it's never worth it. I'd rather not be part of a peace that results from the loss of a human life, rather risen from the dead days later or not.

I told you Canaan came from Noah, they were the same race

Which does not really justify anything at all as it only defines how it IS racism.

EDIT - Whoops; okay, I see where you're getting at with the racism thing. A better word would still be "prejudice," which it still is no matter how you sugarcoat it or rather poison-coat it.