Posted: Sep 28, 2017 8:56 am
by aban57
Zadocfish2 wrote:
Which is wrong. The OT tells at least 2 stories where angels did the opposite of God's will. Which means they have their own free will. After all, if God decided that men should have it, why not angels ?

Time for the "calling out blatant untruths" part. List one from the OT, rather than just saying that they exist... there isn't one mention of angels in the OT where they're not doing their assigned job (Job included, if you understand the basics of Judaic mythology).

Wrong, again. When the angel stopped Abraham, he disobeyed God, since there is absolutely no evidence that this is what he wanted. That's the first occurence. The second, and third are these :

A: Angels are spiritual beings created by God (John 1:3; Colossians 1:15-16) and possess essential elements of personality—intellect (2 Corinthians 11:3, 1 Peter 1:12), emotions (Job 38:7; Luke 2:13, 15:10), will (2 Timothy 2:26), and the power of self-determination. This means they have the power of choice. That’s how Lucifer, a cherub—a special class of angelic beings—could choose to sin against God (Isaiah 14:13-14; Ezekiel 28:14-17). Based on Revelation 12:4, some Bible scholars believe that one-third of all angels followed Lucifer and they too chose to rebel against God (2 Peter 2:4; Jude 1:6). This angelic rebellion apparently occurred before God’s creation of the world.

Angels doing the opposite of God's will.

Zadocfish2 wrote:
And yet, you didn't answer any of my arguments. Except :

I did, the relevant one, anyways. I already explained the thing with Isaac (why would He stop the sacrifice if He was fine with it

And this argument of yours has been debunked. You need to get out of this circular reasoning.

Zadocfish2 wrote:and the other two are irrelevant posturing. Sort of. The points you're making about wars and punishment matter and make sense... but not when the topic being discussed is human sacrifice. SkyMutt brought up the same irrelevant points; you're talking about wars and punishments. Punishment is a frequent theme in all religions, and war was everywhere. Child sacrifice and human sacrifice isn't vaguely like it in any way; it is a matter of parents killing and burning, sometimes not in that order, their own kids to get favor with their gods. Or, just dedicating a virgin or a prisoner to be killed to please the gods. It isn't God punishing someone for wrongdoing, it's taking innocent blood and spilling it specifically because it is innocent. Is execution by lethal injection the same thing as a school shooting?

It's funny you try to keep the focus on sacrifice, and in the meantime bring up wars, which is irrelevant to my argument.
I don't care about the reason used to justify the killing. Whether it's sacrifice or plain slaughter, it's the same to me. What's at stake here, is the permanent attempt at justifying God' actions in the OT by believers. Well let me make that simple for you : whether it's sacrifice of humans or animals, pure slaughter for bogus reason, mass murders in a pissing contest (I'll come back to that later), there is NOTHING that can morally justify God's evil actions in the OT.
Remember that, regarding the murders of Egyptians first-born, it's God who forced Pharaoh to say no to Moses' request to free the Jews. Then in response to that refusal, he send them the 10 plagues. Justify that. It's like forcing a kid to misbehave, and then punishing him because he did.

Zadocfish2 wrote:
I am quite familiar with the Bible myself. The reason why I asked you to provide source was to see exactly what verses you were referring to. Because as I showed it, some verses condemn it, some others justify it.

You apparently are not familiar with the Bible... not as much as you seem to think you are, anyways. Because you claim to have "shown" that some verses justify it... and you did not show anything of the sort. You confuse punishment with sacrifice. That's a pretty huge, pretty extreme misnomer for someone who is "familiar with the Bible."

Look, I'm not saying that Israel has a spotless history. But their religion had an explicit law against human sacrifice, while very few at the time did.

Wrong, again. But again, what if they did ? Do that compensate for all the other criminal activities they accepted ? Or for the very shifty morals the Bible contains ? It's like trying to prove that Hitler's spoliation of Jews' properties had the beneficial effect of saving a lot of art from destruction. Who cares, in the context of the big picture ?