Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He hated Esau before he was born, before he had done any good or evil, and loved Jacob before he had done any good or evil.
This is what I have just been told.
He hated Esau before he was born, before he had done any good or evil, and loved Jacob before he had done any good or evil.
This is what I have just been told.
So you believe everything you are told?
Do you ever use your common sense and think for yourself?
Do you ever use your common sense and think for yourself?
Ya' know - for the sake of an argument within a literary reading of a religious text, one must sometimes suspend one's disbelief. We wouldn't approach the character of Macbeth in the play of his name by pointing out that Shakespeare is an unreliable witness or that you cannot believe everything you raed - we are discussing matters within that literary world, or system of beliefs (in the example of this thread) based on a sacred scripture, and must work with what we have sometimes.
For example - if a Christian is claiming that God loves everyone (and uses the Bible to back up his claim), then a good counter-argument (that doesn't involved totally deconverting him) is to use that person's belief in the reliability of Scripture against him by pointing out a contrary example (if applicable). Slowly - this may lead to the desired goal.
Of course god does not love everyone. Reading the OT makes this pretty clear and "his love" is never unconditional.
God is never changing same yesterday, today and tomorrow... but wait there is more... God is love and god is a just god even when he curses offspring for 4 generations for the sins of the father but then he changes his mind and says the son is not responsible for the sins of his father.
It all makes perfect sense - NOT.
Then he changes his mind and sends jesus who is supposed to set all the records straight once and for all, offer himself up as the prime sacrifice even after the father has already informed king David that sacrifice was really what he wanted despite the long list of levitical laws and their practices to atone for sins.
Then even after the ultimate sacrifice, which was not a sacrifice in the true sense, he comes back to life and disappears never to be heard from or seen again (conveniently) and then all we have to do is receive a free gift which is dependent wholly on your once again having to forever suck up and plead for forgiveness for sins and to do charitable works and and and and.
Any human with the character of this god would end up under psychiatric care or at worst in a mental hospital.
But then of course, this god is only in the collective figment of man's imagination and all the harm against humanity was merely man playing out his own imaginary friend's wishes which for some reason happen to coincide with that of the man/men.
I don't know, the Christian idol scripture that I bought is edited by the New American Standard people and they say "For Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I loved a little bit less"... or something like that. I thought it was hilarious the way they edited it.
Ya' know - for the sake of an argument within a literary reading of a religious text, one must sometimes suspend one's disbelief. We wouldn't approach the character of Macbeth in the play of his name by pointing out that Shakespeare is an unreliable witness or that you cannot believe everything you raed - we are discussing matters within that literary world, or system of beliefs (in the example of this thread) based on a sacred scripture, and must work with what we have sometimes.
For example - if a Christian is claiming that God loves everyone (and uses the Bible to back up his claim), then a good counter-argument (that doesn't involved totally deconverting him) is to use that person's belief in the reliability of Scripture against him by pointing out a contrary example (if applicable). Slowly - this may lead to the desired goal.
Ya' know - for the sake of an argument within a literary reading of a religious text, one must sometimes suspend one's disbelief. We wouldn't approach the character of Macbeth in the play of his name by pointing out that Shakespeare is an unreliable witness or that you cannot believe everything you raed - we are discussing matters within that literary world, or system of beliefs (in the example of this thread) based on a sacred scripture, and must work with what we have sometimes.
For example - if a Christian is claiming that God loves everyone (and uses the Bible to back up his claim), then a good counter-argument (that doesn't involved totally deconverting him) is to use that person's belief in the reliability of Scripture against him by pointing out a contrary example (if applicable). Slowly - this may lead to the desired goal.
Nice try Whoppers...
You do realize that Christian Scripture has the Son of God executed in the ultimate act of charity.
Please point out your suggested counter arguement which beholds a dimmer self reflected plausible reflection that this God does not love one, of his good followers...this ought to be interesting.
IOW....The Trinity Is Love...which includes the sacrifice...thats the belief....don't know how your going to wiggle out of this one
He hated Esau before he was born, before he had done any good or evil, and loved Jacob before he had done any good or evil.
This is what I have just been told.
God is justice so why he loved Jacob and hated Esau without do examine them ?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.