|
Date: 12/5/2007 10:29:34 AM
Subject: challenge
Gary: Thanks for your response to my column, I really appreciate it.
Hi TF. Thank you for your kind and thoughtful reply. I'll share it with our panels.
Concerning your
inquiry, I'm only going to give you one example of God doing something good for someone without hurting anyone else, because
if this example doesn't satisfy you then nothing ever will. The verse I'll give you (one of many that could be cited
which focus on the glorious sacrifice of the Cross) is John 3:16: "For God so loved the world that He gave His only
begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
G: The challenge was for a Bible C&V verse that proved God did something "good" for someone without
hurting someone else. Unless Jesus Christ stepped out of his human body into His "transfigured body" as described @ http://WWW.thegodmurders.Com/id113.HTML then Jesus Christ was hurt - which (God's agenda aside) certainly fails the challenge. By this one sacrifice,
God has done, is doing and will continue doing ETERNAL GOOD to untold hundreds of millions of people around the world,
myself included, by blessing us with the gift of eternal life and innumerable other blessings that go with it.
G: Some claim that Jesus brought Hell into the fate of humanity. If carried out as documented, that will hurt
millions for eternity following "Judgment-Day". With "Eternal-Torment" the punishment cannot fit the crime. Ezekiel 28
displays that we perish while John's Revelation displays the more clergy-favored "Eternal-Torment". The salvation
by Jesus comes by the blackmail and extortion of total obedience to God - or else. If you claim this to be "good", you
have to admit many who don't make it will be hurt for eternity because of God's "good" Eternal-Torment agenda. What
if you found out that you were confused about your "salvation" and you didn't make it?
Now, you may say
that God had to hurt Jesus by doing this, but that would show a supreme lack of understanding of biblical truth.
G: Are you saying that the "truth" is Jesus Christ was not hurt? Are you sure we are understanding the defining
of "truth" here?
God's Word consistently teaches that Jesus IS God (one verse: "In the beginning was the Word [Jesus], and
the Word was with God, and the Word was God," John 1:1). So God essentially sacrificed (hurt) Himself -- and only
Himself -- by setting aside His glory as the Second Person of the Triune God and lowering Himself to take on
human flesh and carrying out this one immeasurable, incomprehensible act of goodness.
G: If Jesus is God, we are reflecting on a severe case of masochism. No wonder the Biblical God can inflict Eternal-Torment
on human beings as He inflicted anguished pain on Himself. This might be a case of: "Do onto others what you have willingly
done unto yourself. I have hurt myself - so, I am entitled to hurt you too. I, God, survived my few hours of torment - but,
in your case, you will be in torment for eternity. In My "perfect" value system, that is obviously fair - because, I say it's
fair. You shalt worship Me, love Me, serve Me, obey Me and repent to Me constantly during your lifetime so I may
select you to worship Me, love Me, serve Me, and obey Me for eternity.
I must also say that your reasoning regarding
barren women in the Bible is completely flawed. Again, as I pointed out in my column, if you're going to debunk
Christianity then you have to do it according to its own claims (specifically, the immutable truth of God's Word, the Holy
Bible).
G: TF, Bible C&Vs are the sources I used - and always use. What can be more the truth than the
"Holy" Bible C&Vs I used. You do believe those Bible C&Vs - don't you?
God's Word clearly reveals that all of the pain, suffering and death that the world has ever known was caused
not by God, but by man.
G: The builder / creator has no responsibility for what He builds / creates? Some just can't be blinded with
that "logic".
God created the world in perfection but man rebelled and in so doing brought sin into the world, and with it
all pain, suffering (including barrenness) and death.
G: Obviously, God built man with a rebellious gene. You really can't have it both ways in reality. Of course
faith / fantasy does say and does claim much that reality can't concur with.
God is now in the process of undoing OUR damage, and that's why Romans tells us even the created world awaits
redemption (restoration) at His return. Thus, God did good to every one of those women when He blessed them with children;
G: God's agenda was to make those poor, miserable, begging women barren in the first place. By the way,
God id the most miserable Character in the entire Bible. Can you think of one depicted to be more miserable throughout?
He did good to Lazarus when He raised Him from the dead;
G: Only to die again.
He did good to every person He cleansed of leprosy, healed of blindness and diseases, and so on.
G: Jesus refused a non-Jewish woman to heal her daughter. His dialog was racist and He even referred to
them as dogs.
Matthew 15:22-28 A Canaanite woman asked
Jesus to heal her daughter. Jesus ignored her. His disciples asked Jesus to send her away. Jesus replied that He
was only sent to the lost sheep of Israel. Jesus then said: It is not right to take the food of the children and
throw it to the dogs. She appealed to Jesus: Please Lord, even the dogs eat the scraps that fall from their master’s
table. Jesus healed her daughter.
What? Did Jesus, in Matthew 15:26-27, refer
to this woman and her poor, sick daughter as "dogs"? Jesus rejected the woman because she wasn't Jewish. Then, after the woman
groveled like a dog, Jesus healed her daughter. Does this documented model of Jesus require all, or at least some of us, to
beg Him to save us like groveling, begging dogs?
What defines the characteristics of a
name-calling racist? Weren’t Jesus’ initial comments to her those of a stubborn, name-calling racist? How
did Jesus respond to the woman before she outright begged Him? Are there self-admitted Christians who are stubborn,
name-calling racists? Does this Jesus model inspire Christian racism? I'll bet that today if Don Imus or any on-camera
politician said that to a poor woman and her sick daughter, they would be publicly condemned to be a name-calling
racists.
He did good to Daniel when Daniel was thrown into the lions den by an evil king and God shut the mouths of the
lions,
G: God's set up that agenda to show His power to all involved. This same God arranged for 42 children to
be torn-apart by two she-bears. II Kings 2:23-24
He did good to Joseph when Joseph was sold into slavery by his brothers and imprisoned by a false accusation
but God raised him up to the right hand of the Egyptian ruler and used him to preserve the people of that day,
G: God's agenda was for Joseph to suffer prison for years (that hurts) and then everybody suffered famine before
any good came out of it for God's chosen. That along with the killing of Egypt's firstborn later was all just to let
everybody know who was God around there.
He did good to Abraham when He fulfilled the promise of Isaac's birth supernaturally (long after Sarah was
of child-bearing age), and on and on and on, all without hurting anyone at all in any way.
G: Putting a knife to Isaac's throat before being pulled off by an interceeding Angel is first-degree child-abuse.
There is no mention of any more dialog between Isaac and Abraham or between Sarah and Abraham after that heinous
incident. They both probably had enough of good old Abe.
My question to you is: How was God able
to write so much of human history in advance in the pages of the Bible, by hundreds and often thousands of years, and
reveal so many scientific and other truths in Scripture long before these truths were "discovered" by man? For
more on this, read a couple other columns I wrote:
Date: 12/16/2007 5:38:04 PM
To: T F
Subject: Gary's response to T F
|
![]() |
![]() |
From: T F
Date: 12/15/07 22:28:40
To: garydevaney@embarqmail.Com
Gary: As a general rule, I don't debate the Bible because I know the rejection of God's truth
is always willful rejection.
Hi T. Thanks for responding. I'll share it with our panels. Let me say
that most believers don't debate specific Bible C&Vs because they can not. My Christian conversion link on the topic (the
Christian breaking of free-wills) is located @
Christian believers will avoid the specific C&Vs taken issue with every excuse imaginable. That's normal
- and I now, unfortunately, expect it. After 25 years of hopeful debate, Christians always leave me wanting - but, I've politely
gotten used to it. They just will not debate nor address my selected C&Vs. Those Bible C&Vs are God's word. As an
experienced columnist, you may be able to explain why that is always the case to everyone. If what I say by taking specific
issue is incorrect, what is the specific correction? They don't offer one. Instead they offer threats and condemnation. Why?
T: God has revealed His truth to mankind through the unseen proof (the inner knowledge of His existence, or
conscience) and the seen proof (the created world), see Romans 1:18-21, in addition of course to the eternal proof (God's
Word, the Holy Bible).
G: "God revealed His unseen truth". LOL! I luv that! Again, What we do get back
is a dose of threats from believers. They don't even try to debate our Bible C&V selections. What is usual are threats
and promises of Eternal Torment if we don't break our "free-wills" and obey God and Christian dogma. Let's see what your C&V
selection says. Romans 1:18-21: "For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness
of men who hold the truth of unrighteousness." "There is no excuse for them not to be known." Sorry, TF, but again, this C&V
example did not debate or address any specific C&V that I have taken issue with. Your C&V just contributed to the
threat tradition. It could be used to curtail the exposure of any one of a thousand controversial C&Vs that my web site
has posted. It qualifies as argumentative for control purposes (designed to stop your opponent from doing what he is doing)
rather than debating the topic taken issue with. Because I do not obey this God's heinous commandments, these threats that
are issued by the authoritative believer are questionable as to their relevancy to the Bible C&V that was taken issue
with.
T: Now, man in his depraved state will reject these proofs and can even deaden his own conscience,
as Scripture tells us, through the continual rejection of God's Word and spurning of the Holy Spirit as He convicts and woos
him.
G: I don't reject "God's word". I deal with "God's word", C&V. I specifically take issue with "God's
word" as "God's word" is written, C&V.
T: But the proofs have been given, and as such an unbeliever's
problem is not the ones you present (intellectual); rather, they are rooted in man's sin nature (moral).
G:I
just select and expose Bible C&Vs that put the Biblical God in an evil light. The Bible displays these C&Vs. I did
not write those Bible C&Vs and I am not responsible for what those Bible C&Vs say. I am not responsible for how believers
feel about what the Bible documents, C&V. Why believers promote those C&Vs and how believers defend them is what is
debatable. They just will not address them. So, why do believers prove to avoid selected portions of "God's word" if they
truly believe in God's word? Not me. They only demand for dumb-down obedience. Tom, I don't do obedience to the Biblical "God's
word" - and neither do you. I'll prove it too you. I am confident that you have not killed any girls who are not virgins,
disobedient sons, gay men or people who work on the Sabbath. These are selections of God's 613 Old Testament commandments.
Aren't they? Ask any Rabbi. Neither you nor I have obeyed these Biblical "God's word" commandments - have we? You might. I
won't. My set of morals are better and more moral than the Biblical God's morals prove to be. So are yours - if you have the
courage to be honest. Can you see how different and better your morals are than God's "Kill every man, woman and child" morals?
T:
As Jesus taught, men love darkness and so they reject the Light of Truth, pretending they're doing it (and perhaps in some
cases thinking they're doing so) on the basis of science and/or reason but never really. And that leads to the next
verse in Romans: "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" by hardening their hearts to God's eternal truth
and love.
G: Do I not also expose the "LIGHT" by exposing Bible C&V? Are you admitting that the Bible
has a DARK side? Wise or foolish - God and believers don't care if there is a dark side. They only want my obedience. They
demand that I love God - or else. Due to the Biblical God's heinous rap-sheet, I will give neither love nor obedience to this
God. What's a believer going to do other than condemn me for my honest C&V exposure and my logical conclusions concerning
those C&Vs. They protect this murderous God as Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon, Pol Pot and George W. Bush have been and are
protected by blind, mind-set believers concerning their murderous deeds. They all lied to the world about their agendas. And
conditioned believers are the best targets for successful liars - aren't they?
T: You have obviously considered
God's Word and clearly rejected it, so all I can do is pray that God will by His Spirit bring you to the knowledge of the
truth and, more importantly, bring you to the place where you will TRULY be open to receiving it. Indeed, I have been
praying for you and will continue to do so.
G: Praying is obeying, T. And, personally, I would never tell
this angry God, real or not, how to do His business by praying to Him.
T: You're obviously not at that point
as of yet so I don't expect any response I give or argument I make to satisfy you -- they will only lead to more challenges.
G: Tom, typically I took issue with specific Bible C&Vs / God's word. Typically, you have not addressed
one C&V that I took issue with. Believers just cannot debate or successfully defend their own God's word. Interesting,
but hard to admit, isn't it?
T: Nevertheless, I have responded to some of your questions here.
G:
But you preached rather than debated the Bible C&Vs that I took issue with. Didn't you? You have a column. You should
have the skills and tools to debate Bible C&Vs with skeptics and critics - shouldn't you?
T: Sorry, but your
Bible oddities with Jesus impregnating His earthly mother (even YOU don't believe that's an accurate description of the supernatural
work God did with Mary detailed in the Bible, having nothing to do with the human sex act but rather a creative miracle leading
to conception),
G: No, you are absolutely correct. I don't believe in the Trinity - but if a believer claims
that Jesus Christ is the Holy Spirit and that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, you can not determine one factor to be true
without determining the other factor to be true. Can you?
T: "love thy enemy"/eternal punishment (personal ethics
Jesus taught believers, or how men should treat other men, as opposed to God's righteous judgment of all mankind) and the
like can't be taken seriously.
G: Which of these do you view cannot be taken seriously? Which of these C&Vs do you view does not qualify
as "God's word"? Do you confess to be a non-believer here? Or, do you pick and choose what is God's word by Bible C&V
and what is not? If I were a believer, I'd worry about doing that.
T: These and many other similar arguments have been made over and over again, and somehow the answers never seem
to suffice.
G: Never-the-less. I select specific controversial Bible C&V issues. The believer then just preaches something irrelevant
to the C&V taken issue with, threatens and condemns his opponent, then usually claims some sort of victory and departs.
If God were constantly defended that way in court, a proper judge would soon find the "defense" to be in contempt of court.
T: Nor will they for unbelievers apart from the Holy Spirit's intervention and an individual's willingness to open himself
to truth.
G: The Holy Spirit doesn't seem to successfully help believers in these debates.
Your input and participation is always welcome, TF.
Regards,
Gary DeVaney
|
|
