Topic: Health and Religion - page 68. (Read 211012 times)

Sure, God suspected that it was going to happen (sin). But that wasn't His wish or goal. Rather, He was looking for people who had the free will to sin, but wouldn't use it for sinning. He was looking for a noble people.

So, what did God do? He put Jesus salvation into the mix. This made a way for people to avoid the punishment if they didn't want it.

You can find many examples of choices that you have in life, where one choice hurts, and the other gives enjoyment... and you know it ahead of time. It isn't God's fault if you choose punishment. But if you do choose punishment, He is angry enough at you for doing so, that He will give you what you ask for with a passion.

Why would God be angry with you for choosing punishment? Because that isn't what He made you for. So, if jumping into punishment is what you are willingly doing, especially in the face of the fact that God had to bend way over backward to provide salvation for you, and in the face of the fact that you know it, good riddance of you. You have dishonored Him for the last time.



EDIT: BTW, if yo think that you are going to accept Jesus salvation, just so that you can stick around forever and be a thorn in God's side, forget it. Part of accepting Jesus salvation is being an favor of God. You can't trick Him. Either you do it His way, or bye-bye.

''Before mankind sinned,'' God already knew that was going to happen, therefore there is no point in punishing humans for it.

Before mankind sinned, there was no death. Mankind used his free will to bring on death.

Then mankind went on to use his free will to do all kinds of things that would further death.

If someone murders your daughter, you might have mercy on him, and not pronounce the death penalty on him. But if he is not in the least repentant, and doesn't care that he murdered your daughter, but goes out and kills your other daughter, just for the fun of it, and would go and kill many others any time he had the chance, are you still going to let him live?

Doesn't justice require execution for the murderer? Especially if the guy is an unrepentant homicidal maniac who enjoys killing?

That is the thing God is judging when he puts nations and people to death. It isn't the simple act of direct murder that He is judging. Rather, it is the activities of sin-without-repentance that He is judging. Sin without repentance is the intentionally bringing of death, just like the first sin brought death. God's judgment is accurate, as is His mercy towards many people who He gives a long time, and much more chance to repent... like you.

Like as nations often exercise the death penalty... for justice to be done... so God does the same. He is even more accurate in the justice. And, He is owner of all things. Don't tell Him what He can and can't do with His property. Rather, be glad that He gives you a time of joy for a while, so that you can repent, so that you will not be destroyed like others that God righteously executed.

The bible has literally pages of god commanding to kill people, what do you mean to look at its entirety? If it's truly the book of a god, you would expect it to have no mistakes. Or that people won't be able to misinterpret it.
You see, all that matters to god is for me to accept that he exists, he doesn't care whether I am a good person or not, it just shows how stupid he is lol

You simply have your religion. Since you are unwilling to look at what the Bible says in its entirety, you have made a different kind of religion for yourself.

You will come to find out how majestic God is. I hope it is before your death, in ways that cause you to turn and accept Him. Because it won't be fun for you if you find out after your death.

You are defending a lost cause. God gave them orders on how to enslave people. That's not a moral god. God also commanded to kill someone because he was working on the Sabbath, that's not a moral and logical god, that's a barbaric god and just shows the mentality of the people who wrote the book.

You are defending a lost cause. God gave them orders on how to enslave people. That's not a moral god. God also commanded to kill someone because he was working on the Sabbath, that's not a moral and logical god, that's a barbaric god and just shows the mentality of the people who wrote the book.

Do people take this shit seriously?

Let's start simple:

Take an agrarian society surrounded by hostile nations. Go in there and forcefully abolish slavery. The result? War, bloodshed, hatred, prejudice, poverty and eventually, a return to slavery until the underlying conditions change. Which is pretty much what happened in the American South when the semi-industrialized North imposed their laws upon the agrarian South. And in Texas when Mexico attempted to abolish slavery among the Anglophones there.

Not a good idea. Better idea: Place humane restrictions upon the institution of indentured servitude. Yes, it's still ugly, but in the meantime, you'll teach people compassion and kindness. Educate. Make workshops... Eventually, things change and slavery becomes an anachronism for such a society.

Which is pretty much what happened to Jewish society. Note this: At a time when Romans had literally thousands of slaves per citizen, even the wealthiest Jews held very modest numbers of servants. And those servants, the Talmud tells us, were treated better by their masters than foreign kings would treat their own subjects.

Torah teaches us how to run a libertarian society--through education and participation. Elsewhere in the world, emperors and aristocracy knew only how to govern a mass of people through oppression.
...
So the "conservative-radical" approach of Torah is this: Work with the status quo to get beyond it. Torah is more about process than about content.
...
Climbing Deeper

Are you satisfied with this answer? I'm not. I'm convinced there's a deeper effect that Torah is looking for. Call it "the participatory effect." A.k.a. nurture.

The Participatory Effect tells us that if you want people to follow rules, you put guns to their heads. But if you want them to learn, grow, internalize those rules and be able to teach them to others, you're going to have to involve them in the process of forming those rules.

School teachers do this when they work with their class on the first day to design rules that everyone will see as reasonable and useful. Parents do this when they allow their child to makes mistakes so that s/he will learn from them. A skilled wife is doing this when she gets her husband to believe that he came up with the idea of re-tiling the kitchen floor.

In general, this strategy comes more naturally to women than to men. Men find it much easier to shove their opinions down other people's throats and, if need be, argue the other into the ground until he surrenders. All variations of the old gun-to-the-head technique. Women are designed to nurture, physically and emotionally, so they take naturally to the participatory technique. To quote Gluckel of Hameln, "She was a true woman of valor. She knew how to control her husband's heart."
...
Getting Real Change

If G‑d would simply and explicitly declare all the rules, precisely as He wants His world to look and what we need to do about it, the Torah would never become real to us. No matter how much we would do and how good we would be, we would remain aliens to the process.

So, too, with slavery (and there are many other examples): In the beginning, the world starts off as a place where oppressing others is a no-qualms, perfectly acceptable practice. It's not just the practice Torah needs to deal with, it's the attitude. So Torah involves us in arriving at that attitude. To the point that we will say, "Even though the Torah lets us, we don't do things that way."

Which means that we've really learnt something. And now, we can teach it to others. Because those things you're just told, those you cannot teach. You can only teach that which you have discovered on your own.
...
The greatest force in the emancipation of slavery in colonial times were the "Society of Friends," also known as the "Quakers."