To: Tova7 and KFC As I said, what's needed is a 'Christianity for Dummies'. As well as 'Argumentation 101'.

Ok I promise to buy it if you promise to buy "reading comprehension 101."

Where did we say, there were innocents anywhere?

The only place he could say this for me is here....

God COMMANDS the death of "innocent" civilians in the OT

But I put innocent in quotes because there is no one righteous, not one. And since he "knows" scripture (and literature) I believed the quotes would be self-explainatory...thus a "reading comprehension" suggestion .

We are actually NOT disagreeing on that....but it LOOKS like we are if you really look hard and read things between the lines and wanna pick a fight.

To: Tova7

But I put innocent in quotes because there is no one righteous, not one. And since he "knows" scripture (and literature) I believed the quotes would be self-explainatory...thus a "reading comprehension" suggestion

If you sincerely believe there is no one righteous, then the term 'innocents' has no place in your statement and your entire argument collapses in the same instant that you utter it. You cannot make an argument from your faith on the basis of something you don't believe. Which is why you would need to buy 'Argumentation 101' as well as 'Christianity for Dummies'.

think this is a great question. I go to Psalm 73 on this one. I'm using this Psalm to study suffering. Many make conclusions like this: 1. If God is good, he will bless the righteous and punish the wicked 2. God has blessed the wicked while the righteous have suffered. 3. Therefore, God is not good.

I know this to be true. I've HAD this conversation COUNTLESS times in the last four years.

When I was really struggling with my faith, this is ultimately what it all boiled down too. Is God good? That was the one thing I had to decide on, once and for all.

And I can tell you in all honesty it was not something I could answer "yes" too if I looked at only what He allowed in my life....which was misery after misery. It took a good 3 years.

My thoughts went something like this.

1. God allowed this into my life
2. It must be so I can "grow" (seek and destroy as much sin as possible.)
3. Ok God, its been a year...I'm about ready to break...
4. Hello? God? Are you there?
5. Seriously this is too much
6. Hello????
7. I will hold on, I will! (Several months remembering His promises, reading them, memorizing them.)
8. I'm broken...my heart is in a million pieces from your silence
9. Was my faith genuine? Why was it or was it not? (Searching)
10. Yes it was genuine but was He worthy?.
11. If you are my Father how could you let me be broken so completely that I am seriously considering walking away from you? I am only human, not a god, and I would not do that to my own children. Aren't you supposed to be the ultimate daddy?
12. Hmmm, Is God really good? His daddy skills seem to be lacking.
13. Thinking
14. Thinking some more
15. Looking around at the world..doesn't look good
16. Thinking some more
17. Tired of sitting on the fence..need to make a decision.
18. What about all the commanded killing in the OT? All the suffering today?
19. Yeah, what about that?
20. Thinking
21. What about how wonderfully made the earth is? He did that for us knowing we would fall into sin...and all that came after.
22. What about the way He came, suffered and died?
23. What about my journals with years and years full of blessings and growth? And my time with Him as a child?
24. Is God good?
25. Yes. It is settled once and for all in my mind. I will believe it by the proof I see with my own eyes, and when the proof seems lacking I will believe it as an act of my will. Ultimately, I believe God is good. And therefore all the things He (as an all powerful God) allows or commands... in the end, when all is said and done, I believe it is for our good and His glory.
26. Whew! What happened to the last four years?
27. There you are! I've been looking for you.........

You cannot make an argument from your faith on the basis of something you don't believe.

Who says? Sure I can. I can debate issues from any side I choose (especially since at one time I DID in fact believe many of those positions). In fact I do it in my head all the time just to test the solidity of my belief.

In this context however, I was making a statement on my faith to someone who is NOT of my faith. So I used "innocent" because it seems to be the word people bandy about when talking about 9-11...here on JU and in the main stream. So it is a word with obvious meaning in the secular world, and also in the Christian world.

You don't ever have to read between the lines of my comments. I say what I mean, though I will admit sometimes it is a little difficult to decipher (though it makes perfect sense to me).

But the very fact that you did "read between the lines" and twist a bunch of things I certainly did not say or imply into the reading......makes me wonder if you do this habitually....perhaps even with scripture?

You just basically argued a point we AGREED on...(that 9-11 was not God's judgment) and then when I pointed that out, attacked my delivery.

Me thinks you wanna fight!

Oh, I just re read this entire piece.

Simon, I don't always agree with you, but I hope you know (even when I get lippy) I still love ya! My "tone" while writing is not angry, so please don't take it that way.

Just irritated!

Thanks T for your heatfelt responses here.

Many people want the happiness of the hear and now to be the real thing. Eternity is far from their minds. They are not attracted to the riches of eternity. If God is working hard to give us the biggest pile of the earth's riches he has failed miserably. Would he be really good if he did anything less than prepare us for our eternal destiny? Trials and suffering show us that the goal of life to get as much as I can is a myth. These are the times that remind us that the best earthly situations and experiences can pass away quite suddenly at times.

As you have shown T, God's love has called you back and in his love he is preparing you for the real thing, eternal glory that far outweighs any pain in this present life. When we understand this, we know we have an eternal perspective, not a worldly one. Your desire is to know and follow God. He knows that.

I love the end of Ps 73 when Asaph finally recognizes that he needs to focus on the Eternal Riches of redemption:

Yet I am always with you;you hold me by my right handYou guide me with your counsel,and afterward you will take me into glory.Whom have I in heaven but you?And earth has nothing I desire besides you.My flesh and my heart may fail,but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever

To: Tova7 and KFCAs I said, what's needed is a 'Christianity for Dummies'. As well as 'Argumentation 101'.There are no innocents in the OT in the sense that you say there are -

The comment you refer to was addressed to Tova7. If you can do nothing else, at the very least pay attention to what is being said to whom.

oh really? Well it says......TO TOVA7 AND KFC. .....so say again...Who is it that needs to pay attention?

This is the perfect example of a prejudice read back into a text by an 'interpreter' concerned only to justify a pre-existing belief. Your interpretation as to the nature of 'Zion' is not the only interpretation available; not even the only Christian interpretation - the Mormons will tell you that 'Zion' is actually America - in which case the 'goyim' in question could just as easily be located in any of the nations of the world professing to detest the USA. Just as easily, and equally without substantiation. As I said, the mountain of your bigotry is as transparent as glass - to all but you.

Well I suppose, anybody can say anthing they want. And guess what? They do. it doesn't make it right now does it? My interpretation that Zion is God's holy city has nothing to do with prejudice and all to do with common sense interpretation of scripture. Zion is always Jerusalem. The burden of proof is on you. Can you show me in scripture anywhere where Zion is even hinted at actually being America?

To: Tova7

Debate, argumentation, discussion - all these things are not about personalities nor about relationships outside the debate. I found your 'tone' a little surprising but took no offence, nor did I intend any.

I was once a college-level teacher (the equivalent of what in America is known as an Associate Professor) and the proper structure of an argument is important to me - and I tend to be harsh towards those who (intentionally or not) flout that structure. More so than I should be, perhaps; nonetheless, it was a habit of mind that served me well as a teacher, since my students reported that it made it easier for them to see the flaws in their arguments and so make progress in clear, concise argumentation - which was at a premium in my classes.

I can debate issues from any side I choose (especially since at one time I DID in fact believe many of those positions). In fact I do it in my head all the time just to test the solidity of my belief.

Debate with yourself is one thing: as you say, it's a way of testing one's own position and clarifying thought. But in order to debate with another, one ought not to take a standpoint that is a mere representation of your internal dialogue - especially when your conversation with yourself includes positions you know yourself to have abandoned previously - in the interest of the debate itself - its clarity, concision, and logical cohesiveness.

It's patently obvious from even a fleeting and superficial study of the Old Testament that a concept of justice is at work therein that precludes the condemnation of innocents. One of the primary moral standpoints of the Old Testament is that God is a righteous judge, a defender of widows and orphans. The ethical content/context of God's command to the Israelites to give a particular people over to complete destruction lies in the abhorrent and abominable forms of worship (such as the child-sacrifices to Baal Molech) indulged in by those who possessed the Promised Land before Israel came into it.

God COMMANDS the death of "innocent" civilians in the OT when he tells the Jews to slaughter the people on the promised land. Not just slaughter them, but even their animals! Not to leave a single person alive.

Placing the word 'innocent' in quote marks does not indicate that you disbelieve in that innocence. At most it indicates that you consider such innocence to be questionable. However, in the context of the whole comment, such a questioning of the innocence of those indicated renders the comment incomprehensible: if they were not innocent, and if God is indeed a righteous judge, then why should they not have been destroyed? If they should have been destroyed then what is the source of your apparent outrage (or, at the very least, surprise/consternation - as indicated by the exclamation point - that they were?

I chose to interpret you as saying that there were such innocents, that they were unjustly destroyed by God, because that's the least logically inconsistent way of understanding what you said.

Now I am not saying 9-11 was God's will. I don't think he works like that personally. Scripture has God using nation against nation with war to "punish" or get the people's "attention."

The above is your response to the egregious nonsense propounded by that moral insect, KFC. Whatever you intended to say, whatever you thought in your head that you were saying as you wrote the words, the text on the 'page' can be interpreted in only one way; a) that you don't believe that God is responsible for 9/11; and that God used 9/11 to get the 'attention' of the American people. Apart from any other consideration, your first position is immediately contradicted and nullified by your second - and your second position is a heretical and blasphemous contradiction of the moral content of the idea of God as righteous judge. Which, in a rather more contracted form, is the point I made against you.

And the evidence I cited against you is contained in the Biblical accounts of God's direction to the Israelites to give over certain peoples to total destruction - which does not occur without a public declaration, made via the mouths of the Judges and Prophets of ancient Israel, and which is at no time directed against any but idolaters and those who opposed the progress of the ancient Israelites to the Land of Promise. And neither of these cases in any way fits the circumstances of 9/11, which cannot in any sense by construed as a righteous judgment publically decreed, but were in fact a series of acts of murder in flagrant violation of the commandment, recorded in both Deuteronomy and Exodus. This is often mistranslated as 'thou shalt not kill' but ought to be read as 'thou shalt not murder'.

I twisted nothing of what you said. I was merely too concise in my rejection of it.

Debate with yourself is one thing: as you say, it's a way of testing one's own position and clarifying thought. But in order to debate with another, one ought not to take a standpoint that is a mere representation of your internal dialogue - especially when your conversation with yourself includes positions you know yourself to have abandoned previously - in the interest of the debate itself - its clarity, concision, and logical cohesiveness.

Point taken.

It's patently obvious from even a fleeting and superficial study of the Old Testament that a concept of justice is at work therein

I agree.

God is a righteous judge, a defender of widows and orphans. The ethical content/context of God's command to the Israelites to give a particular people over to complete destruction lies in the abhorrent and abominable forms of worship (such as the child-sacrifices to Baal Molech) indulged in by those who possessed the Promised Land before Israel came into it.

I agree also. Though I submit that the children of these people were not in fact idol worshippers and would be seen then and now as innocent of idolatry individually. And certainly the animals were not idolaters. (I do understand the OT idea of a father's sin is visited on his descendent's so in fact they were seen as idolaters by God.) Though I am not questioning God's wisdom in such a thing. It is hard to wrap my mind around God ordering children killed for their parents sin. Especially when the NT is all about personal accountability be for the judgment seat.

Placing the word 'innocent' in quote marks does not indicate that you disbelieve in that innocence. At most it indicates that you consider such innocence to be questionable

It means they are not innocent of sin (a Christian's perspective) but they are innocent of provoking a terrorist attack...(general American/Christian perspective). Placing it in quotes was supposed to let the reader know I was not saying they were innocent of sin, as we all sin and fall short.

chose to interpret you as saying that there were such innocents, that they were unjustly destroyed by God, because that's the least logically inconsistent way of understanding what you said.

The people killed in 9-11 were guilty of sin. But they were innocent of provoking their own murder by terrorism.

a) that you don't believe that God is responsible for 9/11; and that God used 9/11 to get the 'attention' of the American people.

I do not think God is responsible for 9-11. I stated I believe when God is "getting a nations attention" he does it with more honorable methods like war. Not murder. So I do NOT believe God used 9-11 to get America's attention.

Does God turn evil to His own purposes which are good? I believe so, after the fact.

I don't know it that makes it any clearer, I swear when I read myself I totally understand what I'm saying....haha.

Debate, argumentation, discussion - all these things are not about personalities nor about relationships outside the debate. I found your 'tone' a little surprising

As well you should. I've snapped at people the last few days in real life and when I re read my comments I saw how snotty it sounded.

I always enjoy our conversations and usually get something from your replies, even if I don't admit it! heh.

To: Tova7

Though I am not questioning God's wisdom in such a thing. It is hard to wrap my mind around God ordering children killed for their parents sin. Especially when the NT is all about personal accountability be for the judgment seat.

But the OT is not: it's about communal accountability. And bear in mind that our concept of 'the child' is a very recent thing - dating back to no later than the Victorian Era. Prior to that, children were not merely the property of their parents, they were regarded as extensions of their parents - at least until a male child became an independent adult - females, of course, were a different matter, never gaining a separate existence from their families and remaining the property of their fathers.

Which is why I have tried, repeatedly, to make that detestable wretch KFC aware of the necessity of not imposing her values and preconceptions upon ancient texts which bear no relation whatever to such values and preconceptions. To read modern values and ideas into ancient texts is to distort them entirely.

Not that she will agree. She is entirely too afraid that her 'faith' is false to risk accepting that what she believes is more a product of her imagination, and the imaginations of others like her. After all, what would she be without her 'faith'? One more middle class housewife facing death alone. It's no cause for wonder that she must convince others of her certainty (or browbeat them into accepting it) - how else can she know that her 'faith' is 'true' if others don't believe as she does?

In relation to the other elements of your clarification relating to 9/11 I can now see what it was you intended to say

The people killed in 9-11 were guilty of sin. But they were innocent of provoking their own murder by terrorism.

With that I entirely agree. As to your argument that God will use even evil means (such as war) to recall an individual or a nation to a deeper awareness of the nature of their existence, I agree with that also. I'm told that there was enormous unity among the American people after 9/11 - a pity it was hijacked by idiot politicians to serve their own limited agendas - a unity and a dawning sense of religion (broadly speaking) that's since been lost. Lost, or caught up in sectarianism and political division. United, the American people could remake the world in their own image - and as I've said many times, I believe it's their destiny to do so.

To: KFC

oh really? Well it says......TO TOVA7 AND KFC. .....so say again...Who is it that needs to pay attention?

Yes it does. And if you were capable of bypassing your abominable self-centeredness which works to the exclusion of everything else you might have realised that that particular part of the overall comment was not addressed to you but to Tova7.

But then, it would be easier to extract blood from a stone than to get you to think of anything other than yourself.

they are both batshit insane

that's why

they are both batshit insane

Ah thanks Myrr.

So sweet. I'm blushing all over.

To EOIC

I've asked you before and I'll ask again, please be respectful here on my blog. You are pushing my limits, and the last entry you submitted I did delete because I did not appreciate the language nor the tone.

I do not wish to blacklist any, so please don't push me to the very limit to blacklist you.