Does God Suffer From Vanity?
- Thread starter Thunderdog
- Start date
Yes we know what happened to him in the bible fable. God got mad at him and proceded to murder thousands or millions of innocent babies to make a point. Why did not God just kill the pharoah? Why is it necessary to murder innocent babies? Why should we worship a deity who resorts to such behavior?
Quote from Mvic:
After a lifetime of believing in a higher power of the Judeo Christian variety I acheived enlightenment this year and realized that those who hold such beliefs are completely delusional. If there even is a prime mover I doubt that he is omniscent or omnipotent and that his concern with the human race is nil. We are all we have got and that is enough. Thank god for reason
I know you think this makes you sound enlightened. Saying "those who believe are delusional" are obviously based on your opinion. Since you have no way of knowing you are correct, neither your doubts about God or his interaction with the human race, carry much weight. There is no reason, when it is based on personal nirvanas or speculation.
It is my guess you spent little time looking at the opposite side of the equation, about the possibility if scripture were completely true (in its entirety, not based on the low level grumblings about "contradictions" or the unfairness or the nerve of Him.). Human reason is incapable of dealing with infinity.
Personally, I went in the opposite direction, based on overwhelming evidence, particularly of fulfilled Old to New Testament prophecy.
This sounds like a kindergarten book report, trying to render an opinion of a college text...
Does calling it "fable" therefore make it so? It never says that God got mad at pharaoh. It says that as the enemy of His people, a Sovereign God hardened his heart, elevating Moses as the leader of His people, Israel. Where was the innocence? Was it the custom of Pharaohs after conquering others, to enroll all the babies of the enemy in private school and give them nannies? Or to add the conquered as slaves or to the edge of the sword? Ever see the Egyptian war heiroglyphics after a conquest? The reality here is oversimplification of something you obviously did not grasp.
so God hardened the Pharaohs heart so that he could not do anything but what he did? is that the same as saying that god wanted to set up a situation so he could murder first born babies to make a point? why should man worship such a deity?
fulfilled Old to New Testament prophecy is a farce. of course the new testament writers were looking for prophecy they could claim was fulfilled when they wrote the new testament but even then they failed to make a case:
The Prophecy Farce
Farrell Till
What about all of the prophecy fulfillments? Biblicists almost always ask this question when their belief in biblical inerrancy is challenged. No doubt those who ask the question sincerely believe that prophecy fulfillment is irrefutable proof that the Bible was divinely inspired, but in reality the question reflects a naive view of the Bible for which no credible evidence exists. The "evidence" most often cited by prophecy-fulfillment proponents will usually fall into two categories: (1) Unverifiable claims by biased biblical writers that certain events fulfilled certain prophecies. (2) "Fulfillments" of prophecies that were probably written after the fact. Anyone can successfully refute prophecy-fulfillment assertions by simply demanding clear evidence when confronted with either category of claims. In other words, if a biblicist cites a New Testament claim that such and such event fulfilled such and such prophecy, simply insist on seeing reliable nonbiblical corroboration that the alleged fulfillment event actually happened. Herod's massacre of the children in Bethlehem would be an example of an uncorroborated event. The massacre allegedly fulfilled an Old Testament prophecy (Matt. 2:18), but no one has ever found an extrabiblical source that corroborates the lone biblical reference to this event. If corroborating evidence of a fulfillment event should exist, then demand evidence that the "prophecy" of this event was undeniably written before the event. In the debate over Jeremiah's 70-year prophecy, which resumes in this issue of TSR (pp. 4-11), the demand for clear, undeniable evidence that this prophecy was made before the fact has proven to be an insurmountable hurdle for Dr. Price, who has yet to produce extrabiblical corroboration of the prophecy.
Another--and even more effective-- counterargument to use against those who claim that prophecy fulfillment proves the inspiration of the Bible requires sufficient knowledge of the Bible to show that many Old Testament prophecies obviously failed. Anyone who is willing to put the time into learning just a few of those failures will have no problems rebutting the prophecy-fulfillment claims of any biblicists he/she may encounter. The prophetic tirades of Isaiah (13-23) and Ezekiel (24-32) against the nations surrounding Israel provide a treasure house of unfulfilled prophecies. Ezekiel, for example, prophesied that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Egypt and leave it utterly desolate for a period of 40 years, during which no foot of man or beast would pass through it (chapter 20), but history recorded no such desolation of Egypt during or after the reign of Nebuchadnezzar.
http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1998/3/983front.html
Mark, arguably the earliest of the four Gospels, is noticeably lacking a narrative about Jesus' birth. In fact, the New Testament as a whole is strikingly silent about the vast majority of Jesus' life. We are only given scant few details about some of his adult years. His childhood is treated in much the same way, Matthew and Luke being the only two writers offering snippets of the events which surrounded his birth. In both cases, there appears to be an overwhelming need to show how the events of Jesus' early life were the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecies. Current events were portrayed as having some attachment to what had gone before. The Old ran into the New in a rather convenient way: things are said to have happened 'that the scripture might be fulfilled'.
Here is a brief look at four prophecies that Matthew describes in his Gospel concerning the birth of Jesus.
Matthew takes every conceivable pain to show how these prophecies have been fulfilled in the person of Jesus, even though sometimes he has to stretch the evidence to make his point. Eager to get on with the task at hand, he introduces his first prophecy early on in his Gospel: 'All this took place to fulfil what the Lord had said through the prophet: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel.' (Matthew 1:22-23)
This prophecy is found in the Old Testament at Isaiah 7:14. Matthew sees in this a referral to Mary (the virgin) and Jesus (a son called Immanuel). Unfortunately, when Christians initially quoted these old prophecies, they used Greek translations which were untrue to the Hebrew originals. This passage is a prime example. There is no mention of a virgin in the original prophecy,
http://www.salafipublications.com/sps/sp.cfm?subsecID=MSS02&articleID=MSS020003&articlePages=1
You somehow think that a race of 5 to 6 foot tall mortals, with a vision barely able to get beyond its innate anxieties and barely beyond Homo Erectus, who wink out of existence in a few decades, can dictate how a sovereign should act?
We are struggling to even understand the nature of the universe - 10 dimensions? No, 11. yes thats the answer!!!! superstrings!!!!! ok, Multiverses - that explains it!!!!!!
We barely have a clue how things work, but you think you could understand the plans of a divine maker? Try reading the Book of Job sometime.
If you took the same attitude before the royals of England in past centuries, your head would be hanging on a pole. Somehow, the past couple of centuries of democracy, thinks it gives license to do historical revisionism.
And the answer is, yes, pharaoh was way overmatched. Who said your opinion of what the Deity should be like matters? In a few short years, you will be pushing up grass.
You remind me of a Roman general, who demanded of a Hebrew priest, "SHOW ME YOUR GOD!!!!!!" And the priest requested that he look into the Sun. The general said, "I cannot do that!!" And the priest said, "You cannot look into the Sun, yet you demand to look into the face of the Maker?"
We are long on opinions, but short on credibility, knowledge, ability or anything else beyond our miserable little 3 dimensional existence.
Whether or not you choose to worship such a deity is your business. But your trying to decide what is fair, you hardly seem to have the credentials to make such a judgement.
Why should the Divine kowtow to the idea of what people think is the proper way to act? Especially when each person has a different project plan of what that should be???
How much experience do you have of being divine? What did you ever do, or what great thing have you ever accomplished that gives you the expert capability on how He should act?
I would be amazed if you even understood half the things you quoted. Aren't you able to do anything but yank things out of someone else's research?
Did your google take you more than 10 minutes?
There are thousands of things out on the web, and pulling a chunk out as if it were authoritative is barely putting the first sentence to a report. Besides, I have already been on plenty of sites like this.
Try thinking on the other side for a change.
This is a pitiful abstract you pulled. Dont you read what you quote:
This stupid logic could be used to undo just about every historical event ever.
"Sorry, Genghis Khan, since your scribe is the only one who recorded the events, and there was no non-Genghis corroboration, you didnt exist.
Sorry, 300 Spartans! Sorry Napoleon!!!! Sorry Montezuma, Sorry Magellan, Sorry Columbus - since only your account exists, it never happened. Can you provide corroborating evidence from the natives of Haiti that you came ashore in the New World??? Sorry (insert 100,000 other historical events), with only one written account, didnt happen. Sorry oral traditions, sorry every who lived without writing, you never happened!!!
And by the way, the original prophecy uses another word which virgin is allowable. I forget whether it is "almaw" or another, but virgin is one of its definitions. There were two words used in the hebrew...
Thats absolutely ridiculous.
Are not the messengers and prophets all relying on their "personal revelation" for authenticity?
How the heck is anyone else's "revelation" any less valid-when its more than clear, most who follow this tosh, follow the freaking prophets, as taught by the church, INSTEAD of their own revelation, in the unlikely event they ever had any?
Your argument is utterly preposterous.