Jews were delivered from Egypt by God in the Old Testament but weren't delivered from Hitler. Why? Why did God suddenly go silent after Jesus?
Yes, I agree with you on that. There is no evidence for it. My question is posed to Christians who hold that belief to be true. It's a challenge to them to answer this very tough issue.
Mainstream Jews do not take these old stories literally to begin with. Unfortunately, a good portion of Christians do.
That's interesting. Israel is very secular. What do mainstream Jews feel about the promised land stories?
I should say Israelis rather. The majority of Israelis are secular views. In other words, they were born Jews but don't practice Judaism.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/rel … 69996.html
Yes... there is no evidence for it. you know what else there is no evidence of? anything before the 12th century could be false. you don't know that. no one does. maybe the world did not have dinosaurs and that was just a challenge from god for people that do not belive or care of his presence. maybe it was created by a meteor. no one can prove anything. every artifact could be false. on the other hand you use evedence to prove it. the challenging thing is finding the true evidence.
As I said: if you believe that "God has forsaken people" it still shows a belief in God on your part.
Not trying offend anyone here but we need to stop blaming God for the harm we do to each other. The real question should be why did we allow Hitler to kill so many people? America knew what Hitler was doing and despite the government wanting to get intervene the American people refused to get involved in another European war. It took an act of war with Japan to take troops to Europe. We still the same thing today when we hear of genocide and atrocities being committed in other countries and do nothing about it. If the United States wants to be know as "the force of good" in the world they need to be there for everyone not just those who happen to be in oil-rich countries.
This was my whole point of starting this topic. We must stop blaming God and take responsibility for ourselves. The Jews were victims of the will of evil people. We must realize that God suffers the world's pain.
The reason why evil thrives is because countries only have their best interests at heart and go by a script. They are told what to do by a small amount of people who are the puppeteers. It's no use a country intervening in another's affairs just to cause more suffering there because of an agenda.
Why should Holocaust refer to the deaths of Jews?
The Nazis held that the Slavs, like the were subhuman. "All Poles," Hitler swore, "will disappear from the world."
On August 22, 1939, one week before the Nazi invasion of Poland, Hitler gave the Wehrmacht their instructions: "Kill without pity or mercy all men, women and children of Polish descent or language.... Be merciless. Be brutal. It is necessary to proceed with maximum severity. The war is to be a war of annihilation."
And in many respects it was precisely that. Approximately 6,028,000 Poles—22 percent of the country's population—perished during World War II.
Of these victims, 5,384,000 died in prison, death camps, raids, executions, the obliteration of ghettoes, epidemics, starvation, overwork or ill treatment...
Polish Christians who were not herded into the death camps could be used as slave labor. Once the Third Reich's victory was complete, the Poles themselves would be eliminated.
The accounts of those first days of the invasion of Poland make chilling reading. In the western provinces, 531 villages and towns were burned and 16,376 civilians, most of them Christians, were murdered...
The first victims in the Polish town of Bydgoszcz were a group of Boy Scouts, aged 12 to 16. They were lined up against a wall in the market square and shot. When a priest rushed forward to give them last rites, he was shot, too.
Another hundred boys were rounded up on the streets of Bydgoszcz and massacred before the town's Jesuit church. The Jesuits were herded into a stable with the town's Jews, where they were all beaten and humiliated by the Nazis.
Although much of the violence in Poland during the last months of 1939 was erratic, there was a well-orchestrated campaign against the country's political, military, cultural and intellectual elite.
Heinrich Himmler told his SS officers, "You should hear this but also forget it again—shoot thousands of leading Poles." Teachers, physicians, priests, military officers, businessmen, landowners and writers fell into this category. So did any Pole who possessed a high-school education.
In November 1939, nearly 200 professors from Cracow's ancient Jagiellonian University and the Polytechnic were arrested and shipped to Sachsenhausen, where most of them died. Perhaps because some of the professors survived, Hans Frank, administrator of the General Government (the Nazi designation for a Polish ethnic enclave in Central Poland), issued an order that all Polish intellectuals be dealt with "on the spot and we shall do so in the simplest way possible."
To that end, Frank's office developed a program known as A-B, Ausserordentliche-Befreidungsaktion (Extraordinary Pacification Action). Under this program, 6,000 Poles were shot where they stood; thousands more were shipped to Auschwitz and murdered. Among the dead were Jan Poholski, deputy mayor of Warsaw; Jan Belcikowski, a distinguished writer; Maria Witkowska, a renowned artist; and Janusz Kusocinski, an Olympic champion.
Through the Nazis' grim efficiency, Poland lost 57 percent of its attorneys, 45 percent of its physicians and dentists, 40 percent of its university professors, 30 percent of its technicians, 18 percent of its clergy and 15 percent of its schoolteachers. All scientific, cultural and literary institutions were shut down. Universities and secondary schools were closed, and their libraries and laboratories pillaged. Even grammar schools were closed if instruction was carried out in the Polish language. In Warsaw, the number of functioning elementary schools dropped from 350 in 1938 to 175 in 1941...
Yet amidst the chaos, the Nazis kept an eye out for Polish children who possessed Aryan racial characteristics. Promising children were separated from their parents and sent to Lodz for further examination. If they passed the battery of racial, physical and psychological tests, they were sent on to Germany for "Germanization." If they were rejected, they were shipped to Auschwitz where they were killed, most often by inter-cardiac injections."
This was done from the hands of Nazi Germany, the rest was done by the Soviet Communist Russia which was govern by Soviet Jews, close ally of Nazi Germany until 1941.
It is true that Jews weren't the only victims but I wanted to concentrate on the Jews because they have lost faith because they felt they were forsaken by God. This is a religious forum.
Thanks Sagittarius for this post as it gives historical insight.
As you know I don't agree with anti- Semitism as I believe Esau did spiritually forgive "the Jews" just as Jesus did.
I am undecided about Claire's true motives and will continue to study the conversations here.
It was prophesied in Scripture.
“Moreover, the LORD will scatter you among all peoples, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth; and there you shall serve other gods, wood and stone, which you or your fathers have not known. “Among those nations you shall find no rest, and there will be no resting place for the sole of your foot; but there the LORD will give you a trembling heart, failing of eyes, and despair of soul. – Deuteronomy 28:64-65
Now it will come about that instead of sweet perfume there will be putrefaction; instead of a belt, a rope; instead of well-set hair, a plucked-out scalp; instead of fine clothes, a donning of sackcloth; and branding instead of beauty. – Isaiah 3:24
We have seen the Jewish people have returned to their homeland and became a nation as prophesied in Scripture. On May 14th, 1948, the nation of Israel was reborn after almost two thousand years to their ancient capital of Jerusalem.
“Say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD, “Behold, I will take the sons of Israel from among the nations where they have gone, and I will gather them from every side and bring them into their own land; and I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel; and one king will be king for all of them; and they will no longer be two nations no longer be divided into two kingdoms. – Ezekiel 37:21-22
(" Why did God suddenly go silent after Jesus?")
“It will come about in that day that I will make Jerusalem a heavy stone for all the peoples; all who lift it will be severely injured. And all the nations of the earth will be gathered against it. – Zechariah 12:3
We will see what the future holds.
Clarie, the Bible tells us that Jews were delivered from Egypt by God, and then, their whole generation was wiped out by God in the dessert of Sinai.
On the other hand, what Hitler did was used by Jews to conquer the word. We have now Jews present in every world government on every level. They run UN, aggressive policy of USA, most Arab states and even Vatican.
Why did God suddenly go silent after Jesus?
- To fulfill the prophecy of the End Times!
Could we say that God wiped out the Jews using the Holocaust for their rejection of Jesus, for example. Hypothetically speaking, of course.
I don't see how fulfilling prophecies has anything to do with God wanting to fulfill prophecy. Why would He remain silent? After all, he got Moses to confront Pharoah to prove his greatness. Why not to Hitler?
I have a gut feeling you are taking a religious view point solely for the sake of argument ie to try to "make religious people think as you do".
How do you respond to this feeling I'm getting?
Claire takes a religious viewpoint because she is religious. Obsessively so.
OK. I haven't made my mind up yet as I am new to her highly unusual angles.
However, I always keep my deer hunter's cap on and pipe firmly in mouth.
I have noticed others expressing amazement at two opposing lines of argument appearing in Claire's responses. Also, I have had no early response to my personal query to her on this matter.
She doesn't come around that often, so it might be a wait.
Claire is a one-of-a-kind woman.
OK Watson I am listening. That "Clairish" behavior doesn't bode well as it fits in with my so far dodgy theorem. An ancient military tactic was to strike a blow and then retreat. Its a very effective tactic.
I apologize for making assumptions about you earlier, and being rude. I'm sure you're just trying to make some kind of point. I'm wondering what it is now.
(Yes, I know, off topic, but I wanted to say it anyway)
Can't say you have been that rude.
I have just challenged Claire again on her ethical contradictions on her thread about Satan and that poor decapitated cat. I also sense some latent anti-antisemitism in her.
I am here to challenge any hypocrisy I see in others or myself in order to hone my own debating and ethical skills. I am not after atheists per se as I see great potential for atheism in today's world as long as it builds on the 10,000year plus history of ethical evolution.
I am also letting off personal steam (a bit like the Japanese do when they go home and punch into a dummy with the bosses face stuck to it!)
Cool. Maybe you will take a look at the thread I put up recently on logic. I could use the help. It looks like you are a self-anylizer like I am.
Antisemitism? For heaven's sake, don't you know how debating works? It is for the very reason of the Holocaust that some Jews have abandoned Judaism because they felt forsaken by God. But is their reasoning actually justifiable? That is the point of this thread.
Your thread says "Did God forsake the Jews During the Holocaust" which could possibly be described as an anti Semitic title. I find it a very odd theme for an alleged Christian to raise.
I can't see that its ethical to claim that you have met "Jews" who have given up their faith due to the Holocaust as a starting point for a debate.
I can't see how its ethical to dissect the Jewish people like that and not talk about the many other "Jews" who might be claiming that suffering helps their faith and that practicing forgiveness helped them to overcome it.
You just cannot be serious? I didn't say, "God forsook the Jews." I asked it as a question. As in, "Let's debate to see if this is true or not." It doesn't necessarily reflect my views. Does no one know how debating works? Please learn!
I haven't met Jews who have abandoned Jews because of the Holocaust. I have heard of them. Was it ethical of them to doubt God like that and think He abandoned them? No, it is human nature to not understand how what they perceived was abandonment even though it was not true. The OT is full of God defending the Jews against their enemies. They just don't understand why He didn't do so in the Holocaust. So the point of my thread is to examine from the premise that He did.
Do you know what devil's advocate is?
"a person who expresses a contentious opinion in order to provoke debate or test the strength of the opposing arguments."
I think I need to make a disclaimer saying: "This does not necessarily reflect my views" because clearly people don't understand how debating works.
You are missing a vital clue to my theory: if a person puts forward a theory they claim is not their own they are being unethical. It is called being a "concern troll" whereby a person puts forward the opposite view to their own in adebate.
Are you claiming to be influenced by Satan if you too are "mentally ill"?
You do know that is a debate tactic don't you? It is not unethical. It is the strategy in a debate. Let's go through this again. My mom's colleague Jewish ex in laws abandoned Judaism after the Holocaust. My question is, are they justified? I put this in a question form therefore it is not a proper devil's advocate tactic even though I previously said I did. I discussed this with someone else. If I put it in the form of a question then it means it is being debated from a neutral stance. It is the Jewish belief that God delivered them back in the OT days. He slew all their enemies. So it is natural for a Jew to ask why God did not do the same in the Holocaust. It's perfectly rational. So I want arguments from those who support this view and from those who don't.
Why are you assuming that all evil must be committed by a mentally ill person? A lot of people are claiming here that any evil act must be due to mental illness. Mental illness is the scapegoat and that is not fair. Both non mentally ill persons and mentally ill persons are influenced by Satan. Satan can exploit a schizo to do evil. He can exploit a well person's desires and predisposition to do evil. All evil things come from Satan. In the case of a schizo, I cannot believe he can be culpable for deeds that are evil in my opinion. However, that does not stop Satan from exploiting this evil.
Then, we should we do away with the police, court systems, prisons and psychiatric wards, along with a host of other things, we should never incarcerate anyone for doing evil deeds, it's not their fault, Satan will always have his way, he is responsible.
Satan is not responsible for our acts. People allow him to influence them. So it is THEIR fault. They still are committing the actions.
If you're saying that someone is under the influence of Satan, then the responsibility for it still falls on Satan (albeit more or less indirectly). To say people still listen to Satan implies that Satan speaks to them and tells them to do bad things. If that is the case, he would be directly responsible. By your logic, if people are responsible for the bad that they do because they choose to let Satan influence them, then they should also Be responsible and celebrated for the Good that they do as well, but they don't. God gets the kudos for the good that people do and people take the fall for the bad on their own. So either people should be held accountable for the good/bad that they do without giving credence to outside forces, or those outside forces must be given the credence for at least being indirect causes for peoples actions. Either way, people rise and fall by their own decisions
No, it doesn't. If I told you to steal and you stole are you going to blame me or yourself? You know that doesn't make sense. Someone can put an idea in our head but it is US who puts it into action. I hate it when people have this, "The devil made me do it" mentality. We need to take responsibility for our own actions. Of course without Satan no one would do evil but we are ultimately the ones who allow him to work through us. Satan is an explanation on why we do certain things but it doesn't excuse our sins.
Anyone who does God is inspired by God whether knowingly or not. However, I acknowledge that I cannot do good without God. No one can. God is the source of all that is good. That is why we have to be humble when we do good. People mustn't grow about donating a lot of money to charity. Then that is motivated by self exaltation and not really goodness. Real goodness is humility. One mustn't expect recognition for it.
I hope this is clear enough. You have put up some interesting points.
No it doesn't clarify. Actually, you just made my overall point of what I was saying. Let's break it down part by part:
Here it appears that you are saying that no matter what Satan's influence is and what he says, people must still be accountable for their own actions. So if they do evil then they do it, not Satan, but then you turn around and say:
Here it appears that you are saying that if someone does good, then automatically it's God. You cannot have it both ways. People make the choice to do good things just like they have the choice to do bad. That's part of free will. So once again, If people are responsible for the actions that they take, then it applies whether the choice is to do good or to do bad. Otherwise the credit must go to the influence of either God or Satan as according to whether it is good or evil. If you hold the claim that People do bad (not satan), then you actually destroy your whole argument for the proof and necessity of Satan as an influence
It is our choice to do good. It is by that choice that we allow God to work through us. Likewise, it is our choice to do evil and that allows Satan to work through us. The bottom line is that it is our choice whether we allow them to influence us all not. That is where the responsibility lies. I could be offered drugs by someone but ultimately it is my who accepts those drugs. I need to take responsibility for that. I did not say Satan does not influence people to do bad. So how can you say people doing bad automatically negates Satan's influence?
I didn't say that... you did. Ultimately, if you attribute your actions to outside influemces, you aren't taking direct sole responsibility for your choices. You are expanding the scope of responsibility to include those outside forces. It's a redirection of sorts. Like your drug reference. You bought the drugs, but a dealer sold them to you. Taking ownership and responsibility for your actions means accepting sole blame for your choices
But isn't that was you are inferring? That when people do bad then Satan has no responsibility? Or am I misunderstanding?
There is always a reason why someone does something. We react to our external environment. So outside factors may influence our choice but we don't have to make that choice inevitably. We can reject it. We can't say, "Well, the drug dealer came along and I wouldn't have taken the drugs if he wasn't there." That person would have gotten the drugs somewhere else. So there is no pointing fingers at the drug dealer. One must acknowledge that they could have said NO but they didn't. That's taking responsibility.
It is our choice to do good. It is by that choice that we allow God to work through us. Likewise, it is our choice to do evil and that allows Satan to work through us. The bottom line is that it is our choice whether we allow them to influence us all not. That is where the responsibility lies. I could be offered drugs by someone but ultimately it is my who accepts those drugs. I need to take responsibility for that. I did not say Satan does not influence people to do bad. So how can you say people doing bad automatically negates Satan's influence?
Don't assume. I have been seriously ill and there is another individual who really needs my intention. Get all the facts first.
I am not trying to make anyone believe the same way as I do. I'm trying to make them think.
Quite frankly, I'm pretty sick of fundamentalist Christians not tolerating me because of my views. Oh, I'm SO in danger of hell-fire! The point is to share views. If one doesn't like it, then so be it.
There is no evidence that the Jews were ever held as slaves in Egypt, and so what they didn't mind keeping slaves themselves according to the bible of course. But you've got a good question in the second part. "Why did God suddenly go silent after Jesus?"
The fact that we have not heard from him in more then 2000 years makes the claims of the bible suspect if you ask me. We clearly don't know what if anything in the bible actually happened and we have no evidence that any God even exists, so why did God go silent?
Well - Jesus was a rape baby after all. That must have been a terrible burden.
It clearly wasn't necessary, but it was funny.
First of all, the prophecies say Jesus will come again in the flesh in end times. The Bible doesn't claim He is here physically now. He is here, though, in the spirit to those who love Him. He is a real being that one can interact with.
However, from the Jewish perspective, God has gone silent. Where is the booming voice from the clouds? Why doesn't God speak to Netanyahu from the cloud and tell Him to **** off?
Sorry Claire, if I'm not mistaken doesn't the bible say Jesus said that the end would come within this generation? That was about 1000 generations ago. If you feel you can interact with Jesus I may be time to see someone because interacting with someone who's not real is a symptom of Schizophrenia.
You lack humility and maturity. You don't have to agree with her faith to respect her right to have it.
You don't have to agree with me to respect my right to say it. She's allowed her opinion, but I'm not allowed mine. Just a head up, that was a rather personal attack and is not allowed. Next time insist that my opinion lacks humility and maturity so as you don't get the boot.
You're right, personal attacks are unkind. I will rephrase: Comments like telling someone they need to see a psychiatrist and suggesting that they could be schizophrenic, lacks maturity, humility... and kindness.
That's better. But it could also be helpful. You may want to look at some of her hubs.
I did. I still don't think a differing of opinion warrants cruel remarks. I'm weird like that.
When someone says they communicate directly with a higher entity, I think telling them to get that checked out is helpful. I've had enough conversations with her to know she can take it and dish it out as well. Did you read about her olympic predictions?
Plus, you don't think a differing of opinions warrants cruel remarks? I told her she may need help and you call me lacking in maturity and humility? Is it not cruel to tell someone they lack maturity and humility because of a remark? That remark seem hypocritical don't you think?
Doling out medical advise is different than telling someone to be nice.
I believe in a higher power. I have plenty of issues. I spose I'll go with her.
Is that what you were doing telling me to be nice? When you pray to God do you hear his voice in your head as well?
In a sense I spose. I heard him clearly tell me to adopt my daughter. You'd have to experience God for yourself to understand it.
If you loved a girl that I found distasteful, you might tell me that you have experienced her in a way I never could... a part of me would understand that. I'd rather talk to you than argue with you. True conversation brings understanding for both parties. Growth is always preferable.
I was once a christian and prayed regularly. hearing your own thoughts in you head is much different then claiming you hear the voice of God. It's my understanding that only prophets are supposed to hear his voice.
There was in a case in Canada a few years ago when a man on a bus attacked, killed and beheaded his fellow passenger because he heard God's voice tell him to kill this boy. Turns out he was schizophrenic, so when ever someone tells me they hear Gods voice in their head, I tell them to get help with that. I am helping. Claire has gotten professional help in the past and I'm truly looking out for her and those around her. It's not wrong to tell someone to get help, but calling someone names is.
Come on, I don't mean I hear a literal voice from God. Schizos think they hearing real voices.
You are disingenuous in saying you have my best interest at heart. You just look at every opportunity to have a go at me.
I have had treatment for clinical depression and not schizophrenia. I'm warning you, Jomine got banned because he mocked my mental health.
You might have noticed that there is no definition for "health". We take a range of behavior as normal, that is, acceptable. What is outside it is again divided into two, criminal and mental. Criminal if the person who does it, knows it is not expected of him and mental if he does not. It's all for convenience, for the normal functioning of the society.
Having said that, one cannot hear what god says because he does not say anything. Neither he a loving father nor he a just ruler(however much you want him be either or both), for god is god not human.
When a thought arose in your brain or when you "heard" that voice, you immediately conclude it was from god. Did you stop to think that it was your own wish, your strong desire that was speaking? It was fortunate that what you heard is a good thing, but you recognise that bush bombed Iraq because of a similar "voice" or as radman pointed out "killed due to god's voice"?
Did you know that Radman send his kids to a Catholic Church?
Catholic schools tend to teach that Jesus is the son of God. You tend to ridicule those who are Christians so I find the irony just too amazing.
Ridicule? You must have me mixed up with someone else. I question adults who believe, not children. The school also teaches what other religions think and do.
Just to clarify, does the school teach that Jesus is the son of God?
It teaches math, english, science, geography, religion (because it's publicly funded it has to teach all the religions) amongst others, but not to worry Claire Catholics are not at all like the right winged fundamentalists and I've planted the seed of doubt. Thanks for the concern, wait there's a knock on the door... it's just the muslim kid next door picking up my kid on there way to the Catholic publicly funded school you are so concerned about.
A Catholic school may teach other religions but does it teach as the truth that Jesus is the son of God? I'm sure that school does not teach that Allah is the true God.
Actually, one of the school trips visits and hears from the leaders of many religions. I guess you don't understand Catholicism.
Just answer the question. Does the school teach as absolute truth that Jesus is the son of God?
I think you know the answer to that question Claire, I'm aware you don't like Catholics and your trying to make a point, but you see I'm not bothered by it so why should you. I've planted the seed of doubt and if at the very worst they end up Catholic, then I'm okay with that. At least they won't be going around spouting about Satin and his scary evil ways.
Actually I don't know the answer to that question. I wouldn't ask you if I did. My like or dislike for Catholicism actually is not the point here. I'm just wondering why you send your kids to a Christian school period.
I know that often when Christians try and sow the seed of doubt in an atheist forum they are ridiculed.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that Catholics don't believe in Satan if that is what you are implying. For heaven's sake, all the chief exorcists are in the Vatican.
I've explained to you why my kids go to a Catholic school about a hundred times. The principal number one reason is I live right next to the school. Catholics are not at all like bible thumping right wing Christians. They are taught evolution and never told to believe in God or burn in hell. Am I a fan of the vatican? No. My kids are all okay. Thanks for your concern, this is the last time I'll explain it to you.
Never taught to believe in God? Why hell are they a Catholic school then?? Do they say, "Yes, Jesus is the son of God but you are able to make your own interpretations" ?
I didn't say they were not taught about God. I said they were not told to believe in God or burn in hell. Perhaps you can't make that distinction.
Regardless of whether they threaten or not, they are still teaching it as absolute truth that Jesus is the son of God. That may be fine for you; you have a right to think so but I would never send my kids to Muslim school were Allah is taught to be true God even though it teaches other religions.
That's just my opinion.
Kids always rebel... if you've got a particularly rebellious kid, he'll probably end up being the next pope. Wont he have some interesting stories to tell! lol
A prediction not coming true, even though there were sufficient clues to deduce it may happen, is not indicative of mental illness. Weird you should think so.
To be fair Radman, talking about Bible-thumping, right wing Christians, it seems as wrong to lump us all together in one big stereotype, as it would be to lump all Catholics or Atheists together.
I wouldn't have placed you in that category. Do you consider yourself a bible thumping right-winged Christian?
I love the Bible. I believe every word in it is true. I would say I'm more of a conservative than liberal. I'd rather not be compared to Rush Limbaugh, and I would find it the greatest honor to be compared to Mother Teresa, a Catholic, of which I am not one. IDK... just saying, ppl of every personality flock to different groups.
Mother Teresa had the right idea. She was a true follower of Jesus. She spent her life with nothing trying to help others. She was certainly not a conservative. If you want to be more like Mother Teresa you need to become a lot more liberal in your thinking.
Rad, I totally agree with your opinion of Mother Teresa. But, do you know, there are people all over the world who negate her entire life's work because she was adamantly against abortion? I find it to be quite the commentary on how most of us think in terms of politics and religion - completely obsessed with one issue to the exclusion of everything else.
There is an amazing Catholic woman named Dorothy Day to whom I look for an example of living my faith in a modern world. Many of her 'fans,' for lack of a better word, want her to be canonized by the Church. She absolutely abhorred the idea that she might be thought of as a saint, and because of her past, I have a feeling that the Church will never canonize her. It's sad, though, because I think she is absolutely what God had in mind when the word 'saint' came to be.
All these so called conservative christians could learn a lesson from Mother Teresa that's for certain.
I don't know if God of the bible had Sainting someone in mind. It's in my opinion it's a rather silly practice and one that causes other Christians to look at Catholicism negatively.
Sainting Kateri Tekakwitha comes to mind. The supposed miracle was a bit weak. I'm glad the boy survived, but it wasn't a prayer that saved him, it was all those doctors and meds that should be given credit. Give credit and blame where it's due.
On a strictly biblical level, one becomes a 'saint' upon becoming a member of the body of Christ. So, we're actually all saints (hence the part of the creeds that mentions 'the communion of saints'). I actually agree with you - as did Dorothy Day. Her reasoning behind not wanting to be called a 'saint' is that she felt it trivialized her work and made others lazy...they assumed that it wasn't within THEIR power to love as Christ had loved - to love the poor, the weak, the broken, the angry, the evil, the downtrodden. They assumed they were too 'ordinary' and that God only gave that special power to 'saints.' It's a complete cop-out, IMO, and that's what Dorothy thought too. That's why she said - don't call me a saint.
Would that canonization was the only thing that made other Christians look at Catholicism negatively...LOL
Why must ppl throw stones?
"Who are you to condemn someone else's servants? Their own master will judge whether they stand or fall. And with the Lord's help, they will stand and receive his approval." Rm 14:4
We always jab, and poke, but we're all the same. We just jab and poke ourselves.
Rad Manposted 9 hours ago in reply to this
You may have replied to the wrong post. I can't comment because I'm not sure what you are referring to.
Sorry Radman, its not offering the "reply" option anymore so Ive just been using the last one possible. It's not so much that I want to aim my comment at anyone in particular, I just hate that no matter where we stand, we always find a way to look down on others. We're always smarter, wiser, righter, than everyone else. We all lack humility and the ability to say there are some things we don't know.
Switch to chronological view. It's above the "unfollow" button on the top right of the screen.
Are you going to see me through rose colour glasses now?
No worries, there's lots I don't know, just ask anyone who knows me.
You can imply I'm schizo but Beth cannot say you lack maturity. Haven't you called people arrogant before?
I truly am not just taking a shoot at you. If you are in fact hearing voices in your head (other then your own) telling you what to do, I have concerns. See the example from Canada in my above post.
I have noticed that God's way of speaking to me has been through repetition... you know what? I'll write a hub about it cause its way too long to talk about here. Tread gently my friend... there are things even you don't have all the answers to.
Quote where I said I hear voices in my head. I never said such a thing. I said I INTERACT with God which means I do telepathically.
Okay, that's good news and now we're getting somewhere. You don't hear voices, but you're a telepath so you can communicate thoughts or ideas by means other than the known senses. Can you explain please?
Isn't it simple. When you hear voice or have thoughts seemingly from other people and if you attribute it to god, it is telepathy.
PS. It is convenient, you can always claim the thoughts in your mind is from god, conveyed to you telepathically and whether it is thought or voice you can call yourself a prophet.
You don't hear voices with telepathy. Anyway, I do not know the thoughts of God in that I know the secrets of the universe or know enough to be a prophet. He does not give me thoughts I don't need to know. For example, if I have to make a decision in my life and I can see that every attempt to fulfill it is barred, then I know God does not think it is right for me. This is by no means a special gift. Every Christian who has a personal relationship with God can know what God wants for them through experience. For example, a lady here says God led her to adoption. She must know that He thinks it is right for her.
Telepathy often comes about with people who are close to one another. I will think of something and then my mother will say she thought the same thing. This happens frequently. Sometimes when she starts to say something I know exactly what she is going to talk about. Once even I dreamed about what she and my aunt were discussing.
Just ignore the trolling disruptive atheists for what they are.
There's nothing more attractive than 2 men picking on a woman for having faith in God. Nothing like tolerance and acceptance for our fellow man.
If you propose ridiculous things it is reasonable to expect to be ridiculed. Picking on? I think the word you probably want is "persecute."
But you don't she her ridiculing me for allowing my children to attend a publicly funded catholic school?
If she keep her faith to herself, nobody will "pick" her, don't you think?
Hearing voices, she can accept that it is arising from brain. But somehow the thoughts in her brain are planted their by god, telepathically. It is nonsense in the argument, that is, it is the argument that I'm ridiculing. You people(religious) think that whenever somebody put forward a nonsense argument, accepting it without questioning is acceptance and questioning that is "picking", why?
You're right. How dare she share her thoughts on an open forum on religion. So you are Atheist? This is a religious forum... I wonder who the top commentators are. Oh well, it doesn't really matter does it?
Huh?! She can post as much as she want. What you are telling us is that she can post but we can't. She can(or you can) say any nonsense she want but we should not comment on it, and should show acceptance! That is great.
Religious forum? It is religious and philosophy forum and atheism is one of the sub forums.
If I actually said she could post as much as she wants and you guys shouldn't post at all, would you listen? Cause if you think that's what I'm saying and you're saying it would do some good to say it, then that's what I'm saying. If you're not saying that, then I'm saying you should go back and read the actual words I said instead of reading your own meaning into them... For instance.... If I say you should be nice because men should be nice to women and women should treat men like crap... well that's probably not what I'm saying... Or how about this fun little twist you like to pull. You say she should keep her faith to herself. I say, but it's a religious forum, you decide, I am saying you should never be allowed to post here... You are one silly muchacho mister. This has been fun. See ya later!
Read that where one mister god make blunders including killing his own son to change his decision, it might humour you.
And use the "chronology" of the top right hand side so that you can reply to the comments you want to instead of replying to yourself.
hahahaha....what other powers do you possess Claire?.....make it a good one!
You should both pat yourselves on the back. Ill call your mothers, they'll be so proud.
Oh rad man, you crack me up. You're like a kid... "She pushed me first." Look, Ive just been awarded the level III commenter award... there's a lot of duties that go along with this honor, I really don't have time to referee.
But that's just what you were doing, except you are a little biased against me. You're telling me that I shouldn't give my point of view because I'm a man and she is woman? That's a little sexist don't you think?
Her point was that you were an atheist who sent his kids to a religious school... after you told me to look at her hubs cause you thought she was schizo. You both should stop the personal attacks and maybe stick to the issue, but if youre looking for someone to say who started it, in my slightly biased, though honest opinion, I would have to say you started the personal attacks... all that being said, I can't see how any of this matters 10 years from now, however the subject may still be worth discussing maturely.
Oh rad man... believe what you want. I believe you like to fight... you got a lotta fight in you. We should all just take a nap. Life's too short to fight with anyone, let alone ppl who don't know us, right? <3
As I said in an earlier post. He wasn't talking about the end of the world but the end of a nation of people. Once this fact is accepted many other issues can be seen in a different light.
He also said "some of you standing here shall not taste of death till ..."
There are many situations such as this to indicate that we need to throw away our misinterpretations and read prophesy with an open mind or we never will see what is actually written.
Urgh, I had this debate with Riddle666 for ages. Would you like me to repeat it?
Yes, interacting with someone who is not real is of concern but you are assuming Jesus isn't real. In light of the fact He is, then there is nothing wrong with my mental health.
I will tell what you said,
'What jesus said is not what jesus said but something else[or he meant something else though he actually said differently]' and that 'something else' is the later facts. Convenient for the believers, but other people say it is twisting words to fit facts, that is intrpreting the word to mean what one likes not translating. I wonder when "the demons" jesus healed turns out to be euphemism for bacteria!
I saw your reply(the other thread) only today, I'll be replying shortly.
there it goes again: that instinct that you have two separate "viewpoints being expressed at the same time.
If a person claims God is responsible for human misery they are still admitting that God exists.
Pretty sure she believes even harder than you do. She gets visits from the devil and all sorts. Your wishy washy feeble beliefs pale in comparison. Sorry - you are not attacking an atheist - just a believer who believes a different version to you.
I saw this on YouTube I am not promoting the site although Jesus was a Jew, and I thought the video was very interesting http://youtu.be/ZXmr_weg2ao
Yes, it is interesting but it is insinuating that the Jews, too, who were gassed, were some sort of martyrs. One cannot put Jesus and those victims on the same par.
True, Jesus was convicted of crimes of the Roman state, while the Jews were just innocent victims.
Two forces are at work in our world. No one is innocent. Jesus died as the ultimate sacrifice, and although the Jews were his chosen people, he extended his grace to all. He does not force anyone to believe in Him, it is a gift. And Satan, his arch enemy wants to discredit the Bible in every way he can. Many refuse to believe Jesus was the Messiah, but the New Testament shows how the Old Testament was fulfilled, through the Lamb of God. Thank you for allowing me to post.
So - "believe or burn in hell," is not being forced?
"Ultimate sacrifice" = 3 days dead out of 13.8 billion years followed by eternity in bliss?
Don't forget… He was around before the big bang as well. No one really knows where or what he came from and no one ever questions that, but rest assured they like to tell everyone how he sacrificed himself to save us from himself. You see he made us human and then was upset by our humanity and asked us to kill animals to please him, but he realized that he needed a bigger sacrifice so he killed himself, well not really because you can't kill a god. But anyway because of that we are all clean and no longer need to kill stuff when we are done with our human stuff like monthly periods and stuff.
It all makes perfect sense when you just read the book. We have to act like the humans that God chose, like Abraham who raped his wife's slave and Lott who offered his daughters up to rapists and Noah who cursed his grandson into slavery because his dad saw him naked during one of his drunken stupors. You see those are Gods chosen people so we have to attempt to become as much like them as possible.
lol Not much of a sacrifice then. One third of the trinity "Sort of" dead for three days out of all eternity and whatever was before.....
yep they were sinners also, let anyone who is without sin, cast the first stone. I have no stones to throw.
Jesus was falsely convicted. He did not do a crime.
Thank you claire. For pushing my opinion of your opinions from curious pity to open disgust.
It is bad enough that believers think their petty desires outweigh the needs of humans in famine ravaged areas; but to actually voice your disgusting cosmic fantasy involving a deity who would sit by and allow the atrocities of the second world war shows a frighteningly darkness of your mind.
The world turned their backs on their fellow man. And questions such as this one showcase that some within the world continue to do insane mental calisthenics in order to justify their sick fantasies. It pains me to know that this sickness still exists so openly in the West that someone would be so clueless as to think this question was acceptable.
Emile, I was playing Devil's advocate when posing this question. It's used to get a debate going. It is not my view but this is the question asked by many people, including Jews. I know of a Jewish couple who abandoned their faith because they believed God had forsaken the Jews.
There are many people in the world who believe if there is a God, He has forsaken them. Many atheists use the suffering in the world to justify His non-existence. They say, "If He CAN stop suffering, why doesn't He?"
You could argue that if any deity exists, he/she must allow suffering because suffering continues. I know that Jesus has passive will. He will allow suffering if we will become stronger for it. He endures that suffering as well.
And the question of, "Did God forsake the Jews?" is not absurd considering Jesus said, "My God, why have you forsaken me?"
Just think carefully first before making wild accusations.
Alright. If you didn't think it, I apologize. But I have to scratch my head as to why you would ask it. The only person you'll end up arguing with would be a neo nazi fanatic.
What point would that serve?
Although I will say your attempt to make a point that your idea of God allows suffering in order to make people stronger is ludicrous, given what we know of the world.
Apology accepted. I told you why I posed the question. Many Jews have lost their faith because of the Holocaust and this forum was meant to discuss whether they had a point or not.
I know that to people who love God, they suffer by God's permitted will ONLY if it will benefit them spiritually. You know, some people will tell you they prefer the person they are now because of suffering they have endured. Many of the best people around are those who suffer. What kind of shallow person Jesus would be if He never endured suffering?
And let's face it, suffering is due to man's rebellion against God and the suffering of the innocent is the result of that rebellion of others. There are those who want bloodshed in the world that serve Satan. Those powerful people cause the suffering in the world.
It is not God's fault there is suffering. It's all of us that don't repent of sin no matter how tiny. The littlest of evil contributes to the power of Satan and his influence on earth so we can be indirectly responsible. If everyone renounced evil and followed Jesus and truly loved and obeyed Him, evil would die. So it is not God who allows suffering but man himself.
God has promised never to allow those who love Him to suffer more than they can take. He always offers us the answers even though it may not be clear at first. He is longing to help those who don't know Him. That is why He uses good people to help the suffering.
Not to intervien or anything but really, what is this arguement about anyway. i belive in a superior being, but i dont really care if people don't belive the same thing as me. furthurmore- even if God doesnt exist at least i had hope, and i had something to look farward to something better. people suffering here are actually the blessed and remembered. they get the biggest recompense at the end of time.
If a person puts forward a theory they claim is not their own they are being unethical. It is called being a "concern troll" whereby a person puts forward the opposite view to their own in a debate.
I would say that God forsook the whole world during the inquisition and hasn't been back since.
If God had forsaken the world, there's be no beauty and goodness left. God has vowed never to forsake us. If God suffers with us, He cannot have turned His back on us because someone who forsakes is someone who wants to brush the dust off their feet of someone.
By the same reasoning, if He had not forsaken the world there would be no ugliness, no pain, no suffering. Only beauty and goodness.
"Only beauty and goodnes" - like the one on Mars or Jupiter?
There's a difference between forsaking the world, that is completely abandoning the world, and being in a world with suffering. For example, God was with Jesus all the way.
Neither Satan or God have left this earth.
That depends upon what your idea of being forsaken is.
I, being a Peterist/Historists, would say no!
Have any of us been forsaken? No again. We have however been left to our own devices. ... You know; ... free will and all.
I see no connection between how 'Godly' people are and how much bad things happen to them. So unless God forsakes people at random, no--there is no connection.
The LORD said, "I have indeed seen the misery of my people in Egypt. I have heard them crying out because of their slave drivers, and I am concerned about their suffering.
During the days of Pharaoh and Kings it was unlikely that anyone was going to come to the aid of the slaves so it is my guess that God chose to be the one to free his people from slavery.
Let us understand that God has given men the freedom to rule and control this world as he sees fit. Since God has given man that freedom it is unlikely that he will intervene with every crisis that man creates.
New Living Translation
Then God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and multiply. Fill the earth and govern it. Reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and all the animals that scurry along the ground."
Not to bring Godwin's law in or anything, but when you bring up God and WWII, wherein some self-proclaimed Christians sent my grandfather's family to Auschwitz, I can't help thinking of this quote:
God was his self-justification for wiping out Jews. Hitler saw it as a Christian crusade. Therefore, his beliefs are far more the cause of the Holocaust than theirs.
Hitler frequently invoked God and claimed he knew what God wanted, in his speeches.
Which once again makes me extremely dubious about anyone presuming to know God's will enough to dictate other people's lives based on what they think God wants.
Oh my! God did not wipe out Jews! Notice please where the Catholic Church stood on the issue of Hitler. Catholics and Lutherns, clergy and lay, fought for and blessed both sides of WWII, Did God approve? Which uniform would Jesus have worn?
One religious group had the courage to warn the world of Hitler and to denouce him, refusing to participate in any military action for any nation even if that meant imprisonment or death. They died along side the Jews in the camps, even though all they had to do was Hail Hitler and sign a one page form saying that they denouced their religion. Who were they? Jehovah's Witnesses.
Jesus said that his kingdom was no part of the world and that his followers would be no part of the world.
Hitler has been wiped from the face of the earth, presumably to suffer eternal damnation. His memory is that of a monster and his name has been accursed. Hitler failed. There are over 13 million Jews alive in the world today.
Evil will always be a part of this world. This is not Heaven, this is earth, and though God is not a genie to be pulled out of our pocket like a good luck charm, He is on the side of good and He will always prevail.
"But you've got a good question in the second part. "Why did God suddenly go silent after Jesus?"
= - = - = -====
What everyone seems to ignore is that every one of the prophets were Jews and they were sent to the Jewish people exclusively. The prophesy were concerning the situations of the Jewish people exclusively
Jesus said " I have come but for the lost sheep of Israel".
Jesus spoke of "The Last Days" He wasn't talking about the End of The World. He was talking about The Last Days for THAT Hebrew Nation which came to their end of days just over 100 years after his death. the end would not come until the good news was preached to all the nations (of Israel).
two hundred years pass till an Organized "Universal" religion is created by the Roman Empire.
Why hasn't God sent any prophets to this "Universal" religion?
If God had sent any; I wonder if they would have been killed as Heratics? By definition, They would have been Heratics.
That is what is most funny. The OT was written by the Jewish people to give Jewish men a sense of entitlement and the OT stated that Jesus was good with the OT so therefore all these Christians are worshiping a book written for and by Jews. That's really funny, no?
I hold Jews in high esteem. They are God's chosen ppl. I feel blessed to be adopted into their family. In that sense, I have missed the joke, if there was one.
Interesting that a book "written by the Jewish people to give Jewish men a sense of entitlement" would paint them in such a poor light. Perhaps your reasoning is flawed. That's really funny, no?
(I thought you were talking to me at first. I can't tell you how confused I was. lol)
Painted them in poor light? Where? The entire OT is about God giving his chosen people direction and sometimes taking their advice. Not to mention they weren't like the rest of us, they lived a 1000 or so years and were asked to only breed with each other. Poor light?
If you need specific examples I can get you plenty later, (need to get a couple hours sleep before work now), but yes...the Jews are painted in a very poor light. Propaganda to support a group, as well as people writing about themselves in general, tend to be very favorable. In contrast, Jews throughout the Old Testament are shown to have serious flaws. God is continually trying to correct them, and they are continually disobedient. Also flaws in individual characters are consistently shown, which are counterproductive if the purpose of the document is to puff Jews up.
I don't know, destroying two cities to give his chosen room and safety seems like God only loved them. You know the whole chosen people thing. Do you think I just make up the chosen people thing. Let my people go? Did he attempt to free any other slaves? Did he secure land for any other people?
Jews absolutely are God's chosen people, that is clear. If the OT was made up propaganda to make Jews feel entitled, one would expect it would purport they were chosen for their righteousness, intelligence, obedience, superiority or some other quality to merit the favor. Instead, it is made clear it is all about a promise of God's to Abraham, not because of any redeeming quality that Jews possess, or that would make them better, or more deserving than any other people. Also, Jews have received punishment and correction because of this status.
"I know, I know. We are Your chosen people. But, once in a while, can't You choose someone else?"
- Tevye - Fiddler on the Roof
Correct, God promised something to Abraham because of his qualities. He even took Abrahams advice and negotiated with Abraham. According Genesis he made this particular people, Adam and Eve after he made other people. He (according to the OT) gave them land (entitlement) and directed them to defend that land at all costs. When an of the fracture from the group they became no longer the chosen people. The God of the OT was cruel, agree and vengeful with what was the Jewish people of that time needed.
My pastor taught a good sermon on "Who killed Jesus" today...
How is it that people are always looking for a scapegoat? The decisions and actions acted upon by the people of this world ultimately decide what sort of world people have chosen to create. The kind of world that exists or could exist lies mainly in the hands of the people. If people choose to ignore the signs of evil forming and by so doing injustice and devastation takes place wide been accused God of things he had nothing to do with?
When something good happen God is thanked, when something bad happens god had nothing to do with it?
When people stop doing bad then they'll have no reason to blame God!
When people start taking ownership for their behaviour they will stop doing bad things.
Frankly I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here it still amounts to people acting badly.
You are claiming people have a reason to blame God, I'm claiming they should take ownership.
NO I am not claiming they have a reason, I'm saying they don't have a reason...it is man's actions causing these problems..not God.
Make up your mind. In the first statement you said if people stop doing bad things they'll have no reason to blame God or they can blame God for people doing bad things.
I don't see where I wrote this "or they can blame God for people doing bad things." But if I did that is a missed type. The evil is coming from the people thus the people are blaming God so if the people stopped doing evil then they can stop blaming God.
Okay I'm starting to understand you. I take it you're saying that it's human nature to blame God for the bad things we do, but I don't see anyone blaming God, they blame Satan and praise God, thus not taking ownership for their own actions.
If you listen to the sermon it actually claims that we are all responsible. The Jews, the Gentiles, the Romans, and God Himself.
Beth, I know this is a late reply to your comment, but what you say here brings up an issue which is as important as anything in this universe.
Responsibility is part of divinity. If we are 100% responsible for everything that happens to us, then we can no longer be a victim. There's no room for it.
But also, taking 100% responsibility makes turning the other cheek effortless. This raises one from physical mortal to empowered and spiritual immortal. This evokes the Holy Spirit.
When you take 100% responsibility, then you are walking with God, because He takes 100% responsibility. When you do this, you find yourself in 100% love, too, and also 100% humility and 100% confidence (faith).
Rod Martin, Jr.
"The Bible's Hidden Wisdom: God's Reason for Noah's Flood"
Anyone with a real heart and soul and a belief in our lord knows that God didn't forsake the Jewish as much as he foresake those who do not understand or even care to understand the plight of the Jewish , Denying respect for those who do believe and do have faith , questions that impose on the sensitivety of Christians , Jewish or any theists about explaining away the failures and atrosities of Mankind alone , is the problem ! ........ To the O.P. , you don't want an answer ......you want to stir the pot of the same stew that fed those who's insensitivity to differences in religion caused the very halocoust itself , Perhaps its the lockstep march of certain politically correct atheistic charades that causes you to parade on in these forum attacks against common differences and admirable decencies between religions ! It is mankind alone that is to blame ! Look to your own heart , mind and souls to find answers to your own failures ! It is Man that failed to stop the anyilations of the Jewish and Non- jewish as well . Blame the Russians for thier march across the bodies of the Poles , the Eastern front , blame the mindless acceptanceof Hitlers messege for the political correctness of the German peoples , and the reluctance of the west to stop naked hatred in its tracks soon enough ! .....Have YOU served your country , your god or even your humanity lately ? Stop blaming good and look in the mirror .
Claire, my current view is this:
This entire Homo sapiens species and civilization are part of a rescue mission which has been ongoing for eons. Salvation and getting people to choose salvation is that tough! Otherwise we would have left long ago.
Was the rebirth of Israel part of the fulfillment of prophecy? Would that rebirth have been possible without the Holocaust? I think not.
God created us in His image and likeness and He is not Homo sapiens. When we understand this in its entirety, then we can understand how Noah's Flood was an act of love -- only love and nothing more.
The Exodus served a purpose. So did the Exile. So did the Diaspora. And so did the Holocaust.
Truth is spiritual, not literal or physical. The Truth in the Bible is spirit, not the letter (literal). See, 2 Cor. 3:6.
Rod Martin, Jr.
"The Bible's Hidden Wisdom: God's Reason for Noah's Flood"
(And Claire, good to see your writing, again. I've been busy for several months finishing my book.)
Please explain how the Holocaust served a purpose? I'm quite sure the entire Jewish population are itching to hear that one.
The whole point of WW2 had nothing to do with God's promise to the Jews. The Rothschilds are of an extremely Satanic blood-line. They wanted to establish a nation to control and Israel was it. It controls 80% of Israel and has an Rothschilds controlled banking system. It was a homeland for the Zionist Jews. It is important to note that not all Zionists are Jews. Of course the establishment of Israel has caused unimaginable suffering to the Palestinians. How could this be God's will? Why would God care about land? Why would He promise people land? It makes not sense since Jesus said His kingdom was not of this earth.
I could never see this as an act of love especially since the flood did not achieve the annihilation of sin. God being omniscient would certainly have known that. The Noah story is not exclusive to Judaism. It is a story acknowledged by cultures all around the world. In fact, the first "Noah's Ark" story is from Sumeria.
So I am going to have to respectfully disagree with your views.
What is your book about?
you are now expressing totally frank antisemitic views here on a "concern troll" thread about God forsaking the Jews etc.. This is utterly hypocritical and grossly antisemitic. Worse still you have been trying to do all of this with the same "concern troll" pretexts.
Yet you claim to be a Christian?
Are you aware of how utterly ugly your logic is?
Are you using alleged mental illness on your part to put forward these antisemitic views?
Huh? What part in my comment isn't true? The Rothschilds weren't even Jews but Zionists who wanted a state of Israel to control. Is it not true that the Israelis have caused unimaginable suffering to Palestinians? Is it not truth that Christians have brought suffering and Islam as well? Every culture and religion has been responsible for suffering. So if I don't agree with what is written in the OT, I'm suddenly anti-semetic, right?
You aren't listening to my clarifications on your misunderstanding of what I've written yet you still stick to me being anti-semetic.
It's a common thread. Anybody that isn't in complete agreement with what is Jewish is automatically called anti-semetic. It's crazy.
Both the "care troll" premise of this thread can be seen as anti-Semitic; (but you say "its not your idea"). Then you follow it up with bizarre claims about "the Jews". (I assume these are "not your idea" too). Hypocrisy.
Unless you respond to my direct debate points don't expect me to respond in kind. I see abuses from some people (not all people) from both sides. If you slant it solely to "the Jews/Israelis" you are being anti-Semitic.
As soon as you start talking about entire groups as bad you are on dangerous ground.
So if I ask a question about a Jewish viewpoint that God forsook them during the Holocaust am I now anti-semetic? Aren't those Jews being anti-semetic? What bizarre claims have I made? Be specific so we can debate about it.
I have no idea which points I haven't addressed so feel free not to reply to this. I thought I responded to the questions you asked again.
I think I said there are Christians and Muslims who behave evilly also. I suppose I'm anti-Christian and anti-muslim.
Of course there are abuses from all sides but I was referring to Lonestar about the Israelis in particular. The point is, why would God promise a land to the Jews foreseeing the immense blood shed and suffering that would come from it? He wouldn't even promise a land since His kingdom is not of this earth.
And I most certainly do not recall saying all Jews are bad. There are bad people in all religions and cultures. In this case, this topic is about Judaism. So stop this nonsense that if anyone condemns the actions in Judaism they are automatically anti-semetic.
You see if a person CONSTANTLY puts points forward that aren't their own they COULD POSSIBLY be "concern trolling".
How is it possible to respond to "your" point of view when I can't assess what your point of view is as you keep saying :"its not my point of view I am just saying it for the sake of argument".
Why do you keep saying you are always putting others ideas forward?
In this case, I was asking a question and not stating someone which I may not believe in. I was asking from the viewpoint of a Jew. I don't understand why you can't get that. I want people to address whether this Jew had a point when she said she renounced Judaism because of the Holocaust. I can't help you if you don't understand. Why don't you just answer the question I've posed starting the thread? Did God forsake Jews or not?
If you don't put other ideas forward, then how can we entertain the ideas of others with merit? We need to know all sides to the story. What persons have the most valid points, etc.
I always would like to know what bizarre claims I have made.
"The point is, why would God promise a land to the Jews foreseeing the immense blood shed and suffering that would come from it? He wouldn't even promise a land since His kingdom is not of this earth."
Do you care to comment? I think I know the answer, "No, because you haven't addressed my points."
I do get it: you always express "someone else's' view point" without ever directly talking about your own view point. I am politely alleging that this behaviour could well be care trolling.
It does not make rational sense to constantly claim to be using "other's view points". I am certainly not going to respond to what you claim are "others viewpoints" as that would be ridiculous.
The question , did God forsake the Jews? Yep he did according to scripture; In the first half of the second century!
That was the fulfillment of prophesy as told in Daniel 12:7.
The way I understand it is all of these prophesy through out the book of Daniel, all of these prophesy (which was given to that specific group of people concerning that same group of people) will have been fulfilled when they are scattered through out the rest of the world, with not a single Jew to be found in their promised land. And then it goes on to say they will continue to be cast out for a time times and a half a time. This time frame was completed by the time that Hebrews were allowed to enter the cities which lie within the boundaries of their former homeland (1844).
Most all of prophesy concerning the rebuilding of Jerusalem were given during a time frame before Jerusalem was destroyed in 586 BC, or before the reconstruction of Jerusalem and the temple began in 538 BC. Howsoever small the temple was (?) it was completed around 520 BC.
IMO, the prophesy concerning the rebuilding of the temple was fulfilled the first time it was rebuilt after these prophesy was given.
Where in scripture is a prophesy given concerning a second rebuilding of the temple ? I'm not aware of one.
The temple you refer to completed about 515 BC was again tore down by Herod around 20 BC and then rebuilt by him on a scale more like that of Solomon's. It in turn was destroyed in AD 70 by Rome when Titus was emperor. This event was foretold by Jesus in Matthew Chapter 24. The Jewish people were taken into captivity (in answer to Claire's question, by first Assyria when they conquered the northern tribes, and then Babylon's capture of Jerusalem and the southern tribes. Daniel's vision from God revealed this to be a 490 year period of which 483 years had passed and ended with the death and resurrection of Christ and the start of the age of grace. The final seven years are yet to come and will be that time in the future known as "the tribulation." The Jews were never forsaken by God, but due to disobedience they were allowed to suffer. The fact that Israel was reborn in 1948 proves that they are still a part of God's plan since no other nation has ever been reestablished after nearly 2000 years of absence. And regarding the temple, prophecy indicates it will be rebuilt yet again and will exist in Jerusalem during those tribulation years.
First let me say that I do not profess to be a bible scholar. AND ... I guess I should ask; which prophesy are people referring to when they say "Prophesy says the temple shall be built again"? ( in our future). When in the book of Ezekiel the Lord told Ezekiel the Temple will be built again, and that the people will be gathered together again in Jerusalem, I thought this was during the time after Babylon had destroyed the City and the Temple and the entire population had been carried away into exile in 586 BC. When it was rebuilt again according to Cyrus's decree in 638 BC, why is not seen as fulfillment of those prophesy? As you say, this temple was completed by around 515 BC... but the walls and streets being built during troublesome times were not finished until about 450 BC. I just don't understand why people do not accept this completion of the temple as fulfillment of earlier prophesy concerning it being rebuilt.
You say, Daniel's vision from God revealed this to be a 490 year period (I disagree ) of which 483 years had passed and ended with the death and resurrection of Christ and the start of the age of grace. The final seven years are yet to come and will be that time in the future known as "the tribulation."
If when the temple was rebuilt in 515 BC, is the fulfillment of the prophesy as given in Ezeliel's" account, and I can't imagine why it wouldn't be, and the 62 weeks began then, I can't imagine why the count down of 70 weeks would stop after 62 weeks...??... hang out in suspension for nearly 2000 years before starting up again. As stated in Daniel, the children of his people were given 70 weeks to quit sinning OR ELSE ! No one knows how many millions died of starvation, pestilence and by the Romans in the first century alone. By 150 AD there wasn't a single Hebrew to be found through out their promised land. How in the world can there be a greater tribulation fall upon a nation that this?
I would think the 70 weeks were completed before all of this happened to them.
I've seen no reason to not hold onto my Preterist/Historicist point of view.
Most people do not realize the futurist views were the minority until the turn of the 20th century. In the here and now, I seem to be the only one holding onto a belief that was once commonly held.
I am not a scholar, only a serious student. The seventy weeks, standing for four hundred and ninety years started in about 453 BC which is the general time frame during which the Israelites relocated in relatively large numbers to the Holy Land. Four hundred and eighty-three years later, in 30 AD, the Day of Pentecost foretold in part by the prophet Joel marked the beginning of the age of grace. Prior to this day, sacrifices by the priests were offered as atonement for sin. John the Baptist preached repentance, and Christ followed that up with faith in his sacrificial death on Calvary, which is intended by God to replace all sacrifices done by the Jews. From the Day of Pentecost on up to current times, the age of grace, or church age has been ongoing. It will end at some point in the future with the Rapture and the end of the current dispensation. The final world leader will sign a covenant or treaty with Israel for a period of seven years. This period is the "final week" foretold in Daniel, and the Gospel According to Matthew. It will be a period of tribulation that exceeds anything done before, including the assaults of Sennacherib, Nebuchadnezzar, Antiochus Epiphanes, the Roman Emperors, and Adolph Hitler. You are correct in that sixty-nine weeks passed shortly after the prophecy was given, but the final week was held back until the completion of the church age.
This was taught regularly and is recorded in the gospels, and letters of Paul and others. Johns Revelation written around 90 AD offered even more detail. However, much of the truth was hidden away with the rise of the Catholic Church in the third century. Even the Protestant movement wasn't sufficient to fully reveal these ancient truths but often prophecy cannot be fully understood until it can be witnessed being fulfilled.
Why do you say, "The seventy weeks, standing for four hundred and ninety years started in about 453 BC" ; when it clearly says in Daniel that the 70 weeks began WHEN The Commandment goes forth to restore and build Jerusalem (9:25) Not when the building was finished but when the commandment goes forth and the preceding verse just stated that the commandment had in fact gone forth when Daniel began praying and making supplications!
This is not an interpretation but a concrete fact.
The first chapter and verse in Ezra has King Cyrus stating that God has "CHARGED" him to build him a house in Jerusalem. Cyrus then commanded the jews be allowed to return and do just that. The 70 weeks went out in 538 B. So the count down begins in 538 BC.
62 weeks later Jesus was killed.
69 weeks from 538 BC, John receives his Revelation 96 AD.
The 70th week would mathematically be expected to end around 105 AD. 33 years later the last Jewish revolt broke out. about 31/2 years later the deportation of every living Hebrew from the Holy Land began.
In my opinion, the 70 weeks most certainly had to have passed before this time.
As you say; This was taught regularly (by the Church) and is recorded in the gospels, and letters of Paul and others. Johns Revelation written around 90 AD offered even more detail. However, much of the truth was hidden away with the rise of the Catholic Church in the third century.
Much of the truth was indeed hidden away Even the Protestant movement wasn't sufficient to fully reveal these ancient truths but often prophecy cannot be fully understood until it can be witnessed being fulfilled.
I agree with your statement as well. .. As soon as the last prophesy in Rev. has been fulfilled; we will then correctly understand that the Church has been teaching False interpretations of prophesy seeing as it is a major player in them. The end of the 70 weeks are described in Daniel 12, and then another time period is described.
The power of the Holy people is said to be scattered to the four winds for a time period described as a time times and an half. They will then be gathered back to the holy land. The sixth bowl poured out. Satan is released from the pit. The story ends when the seventh trumpet and seventh bowl is simultaneously poured out.
We can't know with certainty the meanings of the prophesy themselves, But we do have in writing the chronological time frame in which they are said to occur.
When we attempt to interpret that which can not be, confusion is a certainty.
The thing that I find frightening about what is referred to as "The Holocaust" is the word itself. A lot of people actually think the word refers to wholesale destruction and in a sense it does, but its usage in that definition originated with the historical event itself. The word holocaust literally means 'burnt offering' and its usage originates in the Abrahamic tradition of burnt offerings on the sacrificial altar. Basically, whoever came up with the term Holocaust to describe that particular event is saying that the Jews massacred by the Germans in the 30's and 40's were merely a burnt offering sacrificed to God by the Nazis. So, whether or not God forsakes is not my call. However, know that everytime you even utter the word Holocaust in reference to German concentration camps you are inadvertently asserting that 6 million Jews were NOT murdered but in fact ritually sacrificed.
That's very interesting. Due to research, it is my opinion that it was not the Father of Jesus who required burnt offerings on a sacrificial altar. It appears, if you read the literal translation of the OT, that extra-terrestrials were collectively called "God". They required burnt sacrifices.
The Nazis were Satanists heavily involved in the occult. Hitler himself was a black magician. It could be very well that they believed the Jews were a sacrifice to Satan. Human and animal sacrifices give people and the devil more power.
by buddingwriter8 years ago
Personally, this is a cruel thing to say. but my husband has his head bent on it. He says that because the Jews were the ones who crucified Christ back then, that the holocaust was karma. He is not excusing hitler...
by CaribeM6 years ago
Saliva samples taken from 39 relatives of the Nazi leader show he may have had biological links to the “subhuman” races that he tried to exterminate during the Holocaust.Check the whole article here: ...
by secularist1010 months ago
For I am the LORD your God, The Holy One of Israel, your Savior; I gave Egypt for your ransom, Ethiopia and Seba in your place. Since you were precious in My sight, You have been honored, And I have loved you; Therefore...
by haj33962 months ago
When God come How many people will be saved that are alive. the bible states only 144,000, that are alive will be save out the whole world. How many dead will be saved, the bible state a number that no man can number.
by Alan2 years ago
Sexuality seems to be very high on the list of "sins" with many christians. Why is this, when there are so many cruel and anti-social practices reported in news media across the world? ...
by Claire Evans19 months ago
That's the typical Sam Harris argument. How does suffering negate God's existence? Maybe He's just watching. It doesn't mean He doesn't exist and for anyone to bring up suffering as proof of no God is...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.