Jesus rode a dinosaur (in space)

[Graham]

    Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of his heritage? he retaineth not his anger for ever, because he delighteth in mercy.

Now go an smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

Poor livestock. =/

Saul is a smart cookie, though.

Hey look other there! ....Its the verses you didn't read and put stuff into perspective! Silly walnut head.
Seriously if you read more then one verse at a time you might be able to understand scripture... but then again that would take all four legs from under the atheist table...

  But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them: but every thing that was vile and refuse, that they destroyed utterly.

Prudent, right? Instead of slaughtering a bunch of useful animals, he let them, and also let the king, Agag, live! =D

Course you wouldn't think that its not about the livestock... it was about obeying. I am sure you thought of this.. after all you are enlightened more then us low Christians...

God spake:

  ["]It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments.["] And it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the LORD all night.

Oh, guess God really didn't like those animals.

See above.

  And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.

Wait, what?

Course if you didn't want to just use this to further your ideals you could have just done a quick google and gotten an answer...

29 “And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind.”

How then do we square the words of verse 29 with what we have just read in verse 11?

11 “I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following Me, and has not carried out My commands.” And Samuel was distressed and cried out to the LORD all night.

The same Hebrew term is employed in both verses 11 and 29, so we dare not attempt to solve our problem by saying the original term is not the same. What we can say is that the term employed here is found over 100 times in the Old Testament. The form employed here (Niphal) is translated “repent” 38 times in the King James Version, and most of these refer to God’s “repenting.”55 In the first instance of this verb (verse 11 of our text), the author speaks of God’s sorrow over the way Saul’s kingship has gone. It is not that God has been caught unaware or that this is not a part of His sovereign plan. God is not untouched by human sin; He is grieved by it. Even when God purposes that evil will play a part in His eternal plan, He does not enjoy it. Instead, it causes Him grief, which is what verse 11 says.

In verse 29, the same Hebrew form (Niphal again) is used, but the context dictates how this somewhat broad term is to be understood. When God rebukes Saul for his disobedience in chapter 13, He warns that Saul will lose his dynasty, his kingdom. This is a conditional prophecy, which could be avoided if Saul truly repents. He does not. So now, in verse 29, when Saul begs Samuel not to abandon him, not to bring the promised judgment upon him, Samuel reminds him that God is not a man who makes mistakes and then has to “repent” to change course. Samuel’s indictment indicates that Saul will be removed from power. Saul pleads that it be some other way. Samuel tells him that God doesn’t err in such judgments, and thus He will not “repent” of the course He has determined for Saul. It is too late, and God’s mind will not be changed now, for the time for repentance has passed.

  And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul: and the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.

WTF?!

Saul disobeyed God... God was sad that Saul would do that while in power... hard to understand? Not really... but then again we can relate back to the whole "atheists not seeing the obvious" trait.

[Will]

Why has the view on the Bible changed from "realistic" to "metaphorical"? (dunno how else to put it, somebody else just asked something similiar I think.)

[Mangled*]

Why has the view on the Bible changed from "realistic" to "metaphorical"? (dunno how else to put it, somebody else just asked something similiar I think.)

The more literal the Bible is, the easier it is to disprove. So as scientific understanding has advanced, religion has retreated into a very obscure and vague state where it's now up to you to interpret things how you like.

Which means of course if you're talking in a negative way about the Bible.. as soon as you reference part of it they automatically say that you interpret it wrongly and don't understand.

Pretty clever huh?

[Will]

I asked religious people. I already know what you think of that

[Mangled*]

  Oh okay then...

Actually I'd like to hear that answer too. 

[Graham]

Will why do you think we are cattle?

[a-4-year-old]

Why has the view on the Bible changed from "realistic" to "metaphorical"? (dunno how else to put it, somebody else just asked something similiar I think.)

The more literal the Bible is, the easier it is to disprove. So as scientific understanding has advanced, religion has retreated into a very obscure and vague state where it's now up to you to interpret things how you like.

Which means of course if you're talking in a negative way about the Bible.. as soon as you reference part of it they automatically say that you interpret it wrongly and don't understand.

Pretty clever huh?

you speak like it is a battlefield. very belligerent of you.

[Svirin Kerath]

Hey look other there! ....Its the verses you didn't read and put stuff into perspective! Silly walnut head.
Seriously if you read more then one verse at a time you might be able to understand scripture... but then again that would take all four legs from under the atheist table...

Actually, I was being sarcastic. My main concern was for the infants and children that God kindly asked Saul to slaughter.

Course you wouldn't think that its not about the livestock... it was about obeying. I am sure you thought of this.. after all you are enlightened more then us low Christians...

I'm not talking about being more enlightened, I'm pointing out inconsistencies. Also, what Saul did makes complete sense. There's nothing evil about livestock, why would god's wrath extend to them? As for Agag... Saul showed mercy on him. So god punishes him for showing mercy. That's my beef.

Course if you didn't want to just use this to further your ideals you could have just done a quick google and gotten an answer...

29 “And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind.”

How then do we square the words of verse 29 with what we have just read in verse 11?

11 “I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following Me, and has not carried out My commands.” And Samuel was distressed and cried out to the LORD all night.

The same Hebrew term is employed in both verses 11 and 29, so we dare not attempt to solve our problem by saying the original term is not the same. What we can say is that the term employed here is found over 100 times in the Old Testament. The form employed here (Niphal) is translated “repent” 38 times in the King James Version, and most of these refer to God’s “repenting.”55 In the first instance of this verb (verse 11 of our text), the author speaks of God’s sorrow over the way Saul’s kingship has gone. It is not that God has been caught unaware or that this is not a part of His sovereign plan. God is not untouched by human sin; He is grieved by it. Even when God purposes that evil will play a part in His eternal plan, He does not enjoy it. Instead, it causes Him grief, which is what verse 11 says.

In verse 29, the same Hebrew form (Niphal again) is used, but the context dictates how this somewhat broad term is to be understood. When God rebukes Saul for his disobedience in chapter 13, He warns that Saul will lose his dynasty, his kingdom. This is a conditional prophecy, which could be avoided if Saul truly repents. He does not. So now, in verse 29, when Saul begs Samuel not to abandon him, not to bring the promised judgment upon him, Samuel reminds him that God is not a man who makes mistakes and then has to “repent” to change course. Samuel’s indictment indicates that Saul will be removed from power. Saul pleads that it be some other way. Samuel tells him that God doesn’t err in such judgments, and thus He will not “repent” of the course He has determined for Saul. It is too late, and God’s mind will not be changed now, for the time for repentance has passed.

From what are they deciding how to translate that word? Seems like an arbitrary double standard to me. "If it's used in this sentence, of course it means 'grieves.' In this one, it means 'repent.' Oh, just because."

Saul disobeyed God... God was sad that Saul would do that while in power... hard to understand? Not really... but then again we can relate back to the whole "atheists not seeing the obvious" trait.

I think you might be making some atheists around here mad on my account. Which is unfair because,  y'know, I'm not an atheist...
But if you mean face-value for "obvious" then what i see is:

God repents.

God never repents, for he is not man.

God repents.

Yeah, clear and obvious.

[a-4-year-old]

maybe you don't know what repent can mean:


"Samuel did not see Saul again until the day of his death; for Samuel grieved over Saul. And the LORD regretted that He had made Saul king over Israel."

"Samuel didn't see Saul again before he died, though Samuel mourned over Saul. And the LORD regretted that he had made Saul king of Israel."


Repent almost always means to regret.

[Graham]

Actually, I was being sarcastic. My main concern was for the infants and children that God kindly asked Saul to slaughter.

Again... if you didn't just read one verse you would get why everything needed to be cleared. The people were evil and dwelling in the promise land, why would God willingly put people that would defy His rules with people that obey his rules?

I'm not talking about being more enlightened, I'm pointing out inconsistencies. Also, what Saul did makes complete sense. There's nothing evil about livestock, why would god's wrath extend to them? As for Agag... Saul showed mercy on him. So god punishes him for showing mercy. That's my beef.

Again it is about obeying... and also read above....

From what are they deciding how to translate that word? Seems like an arbitrary double standard to me. "If it's used in this sentence, of course it means 'grieves.' In this one, it means 'repent.' Oh, just because."

They are putting the words in context... is that bad? Have I been wrong all these years?

I think you might be making some atheists around here mad on my account. Which is unfair because,  y'know, I'm not an atheist...

So? Atheists make petty arguments and are constantly bugging me with crappy arguments that fall apart and then backing them up with "I think its stupid." or "Doesn't this sound mean." AKA trying to dig their way out of a hole due to poorly constructed debates. Plus like you they all have one super duper source that will somehow tear down all religion they deem bad. Which is usually one stupid person that can't actually make an intelligent debate so they post blogs of crap then scurry back into their sad lifes to hide behind a false sense of fulfilment. I make atheists mad? Good, maybe they will realize that my beliefs have made my life happy and have made me a better person, maybe they would stop targeting people and put that guiding light on themselves.

/endrant

[Svirin Kerath]

maybe you don't know what repent can mean:


"Samuel did not see Saul again until the day of his death; for Samuel grieved over Saul. And the LORD regretted that He had made Saul king over Israel."

"Samuel didn't see Saul again before he died, though Samuel mourned over Saul. And the LORD regretted that he had made Saul king of Israel."


Repent almost always means to regret.

Except when it means, y'know... repent.

Ok, that argument's pretty silly, as there's absolutely no basis you give for it other than "hey it makes sense if I replace this word with another one." I had to do independent research. While most times repent does seem to mean "grieve" http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv-idx?type=simple&format=Long&q1=repent&restrict=All&size=First+100 that usage is always followed by the subject or object of grief, like

Judg.21

   1. [6] And the children of Israel repented them for Benjamin their brother, and said, There is one tribe cut off from Israel this day.
   2. [15] And the people repented them for Benjamin, because that the LORD had made a breach in the tribes of Israel.

and

Judg.2

   1. [18] And when the LORD raised them up judges, then the LORD was with the judge, and delivered them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge: for it repented the LORD because of their groanings by reason of them that oppressed them and vexed them.

It makes most sense as "grief" when it's basically saying it "grieved him" or "grieved over them."

However, if you look at the more traditional meaning of repent...

Kgs.8

   1. [47] Yet if they shall bethink themselves in the land whither they were carried captives, and repent, and make supplication unto thee in the land of them that carried them captives, saying, We have sinned, and have done perversely, we have committed wickedness;

Jer.31

   1. [19] Surely after that I was turned, I repented; and after that I was instructed, I smote upon my thigh: I was ashamed, yea, even confounded, because I did bear the reproach of my youth.

Ezek.18

   1. [30] Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord GOD. Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin.

[29] And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent.

[35] And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul: and the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.

Date Posted: December 17, 2007, 05:13:46 pm

Again... if you didn't just read one verse you would get why everything needed to be cleared. The people were evil and dwelling in the promise land, why would God willingly put people that would defy His rules with people that obey his rules?

How the hell are infants evil?!

Did infants choose to be born there? No. Are they capable of making the choice to live there? No. And apparently, the people that obey his rules don't even obey his rules, so what difference does it make? He knows he's going to reject them later.

Again it is about obeying... and also read above....

I did. I'm saying to obey god would have been idiotic and a waste, in this case.

They are putting the words in context... is that bad? Have I been wrong all these years?

They didn't actually give context. See above post.

So? Atheists make petty arguments and are constantly bugging me with crappy arguments that fall apart and then backing them up with "I think its stupid." or "Doesn't this sound mean." AKA trying to dig their way out of a hole due to poorly constructed debates. Plus like you they all have one super duper source that will somehow tear down all religion they deem bad. Which is usually one stupid person that can't actually make an intelligent debate so they post blogs of crap then scurry back into their sad lifes to hide behind a false sense of fulfilment. I make atheists mad? Good, maybe they will realize that my beliefs have made my life happy and have made me a better person, maybe they would stop targeting people and put that guiding light on themselves.

/endrant

I only just saw that site now. The source I've been looking at longest is really the Bible itself. The OT is what I have the most beef with, though there are some questionable things throughout NT, I mainly focus on the subtle intelligence of the parables, of the Beatitudes, Works of Mercy, and New Commandments.

I don't know about stupid. But I think it's downright cruel to instruct people to slaughter infants. That's the kind of thing we label with terms like "Genocide" and "Holocaust."

[The Geologist]

Alright, alright...instead of getting into an endless scripture debate about Gods great plan, I refer you two to the following link.  Not quite where I was intending to take this topic, as it's not a debate everyone can readily take place in without a knowledge of the book.

Debate: Why the need to compete and "keep up with the Joneses"? The need of creationists to debunk and combat evolutionists is a sign of a lack of faith and ultimately insecurity.  The truly faithful would have no need to meet every argument, much less counter them with bad science (as is sometimes the case).  Does the need to explain to this degree constitute a lack of faith, as opposed to a faithful yet uninformed stance?

Debate: How credible are the arguments?  Someone has to be a physics nut out there, or a closet astronomer.  I can think of a few explanations given for anti-evolution arguments of the planetary assortment.

Debate:  If all the religions got into a fight, which one would win?

Debate: If God were to come along say, tomorrow, and decide to drop in on Earth, would he be pissed because we let the lawn and garden grow so unkempt? 

[Graham]

How the hell are infants evil?!

Did infants choose to be born there? No. Are they capable of making the choice to live there? No. And apparently, the people that obey his rules don't even obey his rules, so what difference does it make? He knows he's going to reject them later.

Yeah its bad that it was ordered but like I KEEP SAYING..... READ!!!!

1 Samuel 15:35 clearly states Agag already killed children, before in the chapter it says he attacked the Israelites before. I could go deeper into this but right now I don't feel like it.

did. I'm saying to obey god would have been idiotic and a waste, in this case.

So obeying someone who you believe knows what will happen, what will make you happy, and what is best for you and everyone else is wrong in your mind... sucks to be your parents....

only just saw that site now. The source I've been looking at longest is really the Bible itself. The OT is what I have the most beef with, though there are some questionable things throughout NT, I mainly focus on the subtle intelligence of the parables, of the Beatitudes, Works of Mercy, and New Commandments.

Eh... wasn't all directed at you... I get sick of people thinking they have found  something in the Bible that will destroy my faith and let the light shine in on the darkness that has consumed my life for oh so long.  It gets annoying to have to disprove everyone random moron that comes across some crappy, unresearched thought.  Then they call me ignorant for not believing the way they do.

[Svirin Kerath]

How the hell are infants evil?!

Did infants choose to be born there? No. Are they capable of making the choice to live there? No. And apparently, the people that obey his rules don't even obey his rules, so what difference does it make? He knows he's going to reject them later.

Yeah its bad that it was ordered but like I KEEP SAYING..... READ!!!!

1 Samuel 15:35 clearly states Agag already killed children, before in the chapter it says he attacked the Israelites before. I could go deeper into this but right now I don't feel like it.

I'm sorry, but that seems like a real cop-out to me. They killed children and lived ont heir land, and other "evil" things, and that makes them evil, right? So why does god himself then order Saul to do the same thing? Killing children I mean. Jesus basically said eye for an eye is cruel, and you should turn the other cheek.

So obeying someone who you believe knows what will happen, what will make you happy, and what is best for you and everyone else is wrong in your mind... sucks to be your parents....

Well, yeah, but if my parents told me to kill a bunch of animals for no reason other than to exhibit their wrath, I'd think twice before doing it.

Eh... wasn't all directed at you... I get sick of people thinking they have found  something in the Bible that will destroy my faith and let the light shine in on the darkness that has consumed my life for oh so long.  It gets annoying to have to disprove everyone random moron that comes across some crappy, unresearched thought.  Then they call me ignorant for not believing the way they do.

I'm just trying to build up my own beliefs. As I've said before, I don't really ascribe to atheism because I think it's arrogant to assume what it does on the same basis that religious people assume their faith on.

[a-4-year-old]

maybe you don't know what repent can mean:


"Samuel did not see Saul again until the day of his death; for Samuel grieved over Saul. And the LORD regretted that He had made Saul king over Israel."

"Samuel didn't see Saul again before he died, though Samuel mourned over Saul. And the LORD regretted that he had made Saul king of Israel."


Repent almost always means to regret.

Except when it means, y'know... repent.

Do you know what repent means? Repent means to regret, when it is used by Christians now, it is usually regretting and seeking forgiveness, which isn't entirely accurate.

99% of the atheist argument against the bible is just disputed terminology.

[Svirin Kerath]

Do you know what repent means? Repent means to regret, when it is used by Christians now, it is usually regretting and seeking forgiveness, which isn't entirely accurate.

99% of the atheist argument against the bible is just disputed terminology.

"Repent" means:
1.   to feel sorry, self-reproachful, or contrite for past conduct; regret or be conscience-stricken about a past action, attitude, etc. (often fol. by of): He repented after his thoughtless act.
2.   to feel such sorrow for sin or fault as to be disposed to change one's life for the better; be penitent.
–verb (used with object)
3.   to remember or regard with self-reproach or contrition: to repent one's injustice to another.
4.   to feel sorry for; regret: to repent an imprudent act.

all definitions imply that the regret is preceded by a wrongful act.

And also, many people consider their lives to be governed by this terminology; I'd say it's important to make sure we're getting it right.

[a-4-year-old]

Do you know what repent means? Repent means to regret, when it is used by Christians now, it is usually regretting and seeking forgiveness, which isn't entirely accurate.

99% of the atheist argument against the bible is just disputed terminology.

"Repent" means:
1.   to feel sorry, self-reproachful, or contrite for past conduct; regret or be conscience-stricken about a past action, attitude, etc. (often fol. by of): He repented after his thoughtless act.
2.   to feel such sorrow for sin or fault as to be disposed to change one's life for the better; be penitent.
–verb (used with object)
3.   to remember or regard with self-reproach or contrition: to repent one's injustice to another.
4.   to feel sorry for; regret: to repent an imprudent act.

all definitions imply that the regret is preceded by a wrongful act.

And also, many people consider their lives to be governed by this terminology; I'd say it's important to make sure we're getting it right.

Jee, I regret getting strawberry ice cream instead of chocolate.

The atheist argument is finding an english translation of a word and ripping it to shreds because it isn't a perfect translation.

[Kszchroink]

How the hell are infants evil?!

Did infants choose to be born there? No. Are they capable of making the choice to live there? No. And apparently, the people that obey his rules don't even obey his rules, so what difference does it make? He knows he's going to reject them later.

ok this might be a little late but

isn't there some kind of thing in christianity that basically says infants are evil because they were born from sin, and that baptism is what you do to repent (i'm using this in the "turn away from sin or do penitence" sense) their sins?

[Graham]

I think only catholics believe in baptism as a necessity.

[Svirin Kerath]

Do you know what repent means? Repent means to regret, when it is used by Christians now, it is usually regretting and seeking forgiveness, which isn't entirely accurate.

99% of the atheist argument against the bible is just disputed terminology.

"Repent" means:
1.   to feel sorry, self-reproachful, or contrite for past conduct; regret or be conscience-stricken about a past action, attitude, etc. (often fol. by of): He repented after his thoughtless act.
2.   to feel such sorrow for sin or fault as to be disposed to change one's life for the better; be penitent.
–verb (used with object)
3.   to remember or regard with self-reproach or contrition: to repent one's injustice to another.
4.   to feel sorry for; regret: to repent an imprudent act.

all definitions imply that the regret is preceded by a wrongful act.

And also, many people consider their lives to be governed by this terminology; I'd say it's important to make sure we're getting it right.

Jee, I regret getting strawberry ice cream instead of chocolate.

The atheist argument is finding an english translation of a word and ripping it to shreds because it isn't a perfect translation.

My argument is actually that I know what "repent" means which is why I find it so confusing that others are trying to push it as meaning something else instead of debating the meaning of the original word. I don't know any Hebrew or Greek, and I doubt you know much of them either, so debating in those languages will be difficult.