God is not to Mock

  • Thread starter Thread starter Shibolet
  • Start date Start date
S

Shibolet

Guest
GOD IS NOT TO MOCK.

"Make no mistake about this," said Paul, "No one makes a fool of God. A man will reap only what he saws." (Gal. 6:7)

Ahab, king of Israel the Ten Tribes was at war with Syria and he needed some help which he asked of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah. Somehow, Ahab was aware that the Syrian king had ordered the captains of their Armies to kill only king Ahab and the war would be over. (2 Chron. 18:30) So, Ahab, without any explanation why, asked the king of Judah to keep his royal robes while he, Ahab, would disguise himself as a common soldier.(2 Chron. 18:29) The siege was closing on Jehoshaphat when an arrow went berserk from a certain Syrian soldier and hit Ahab on the chest which was enough to kill him. (2 Chron. 18:33)

Now, if you turn to Acts 21, when Paul visited Jerusalem for the last time, he meant to get into the Temple but was afraid because of the news that he was preaching to the Jews throughout the Diaspora against Moses, the Jewish customs and circumcision. (Acts 21:21) In order to save him from being arrested, James, the head of the Nazarenes in Jerusalem had suggested that Paul joined four other Jews who had a vow and disguise himself in the Temple to make believe he was also an observant Jew. (Acts 21:23,24) When the seven days of the celebration were about over, some Jews from Asia recognized Paul and arrested him. (Acts 21:27) He was taken to trial, appealed to Caesar and left for Rome. And it was the last the Jews of Jerusalem ever saw of him.

The bottom line is that king Ahab disguised himself as a common soldier and was found by a fatal arrow from another common but Syrian soldier. Paul disguised himself as an observant Jew, was acknowledge by a Diaspora observant Jew visiting Jerusalem at the same time, was arrested and banished forever from the Land of Israel.

Indeed, God is not to mock. What one sows, that's exactly what he will reap.
 
You can be plainer: Paul was banished because you think the religion he preach, Christianity, is a mockery of God.
 
wil said:
meh....
Any G!d so insecure as to worry about the gossip or words of his creations isn't worth worship...and deserves mocking...
Click to expand...
Or more germain, anyone making inane comments on a text he obviously hasn't read (or clearly doesn't understand) deserves to come in for a bit of stick ...
 
As the old saying goes, nothing amuses the Gods more than a man with a plan!
 
I'll say I agree with the title completely, I wouldn't dare engage in some of these responses. You may not see the punishment in this life, but that doesn't mean you will not in the hereafter.

As for Paul, I'll leave that topic for something a bit more non-aggressive audience.
 
Devils' Advocate said:
You are presupposing a hereafter. For which there is absolutely no proof whatsoever. Of course there is no proof there isn't either. So we spins the wheel and we takes our chances. I am comfortable with the chances I take.
Click to expand...
Proof is in the text. If you don't believe the text, then you won't believe the proof. I'd rather not take chances with such possible consequences of not trusting them. But my experiences are not yours nor yours mine. Maybe one day we will agree one way or the other, but obviously not today. :)
 
But what if you are wrong defense.... awfully early for last ditch efforts.

Gotta have faith to get faith...gotta first believe the book is true than you can know the book is true because it says so...

works for jews, muslims, christians, mormons...for all of their books...and each uses the same circular reasoning to prove they are right.
 
wil said:
works for jews, muslims, christians, mormons...for all of their books...and each uses the same circular reasoning to prove they are right.
Click to expand...

It's not circler reasoning of they have a personal conviction outside the book to begin with. I think But my experiences are not yours nor yours mine. indicates such convictions. I admit that I'd rather not take chances could indicate a lack of an external source of faith.
 
Once you establish that there is a God, then it becomes a reason to find his message, once you find his message it is reinforcement for the belief of God.

If I was to debate someone, I could bring up many proofs that to me, prove beyond a doubt that there is a God. Then beyond that I could prove that (again for me) his message is the Quran. And that his message had been brought in pieces before by his prophets. It isn't so circular, and I admit it may not have been stated fully in the last post that there is a process that would have to take place before a belief (any) is established. IMO the process is something like
1. Establish possibility of a god
2. Establish probability of a god
3. Establish proof of a god
4. Establish the god's message
5. Establish proof the message is the truth (at least to you)
6. Establish personal doctrine based on understanding of text
7. Realize other proofs of the god
8. Use realization and doctrine to grow toward that god.

IMO, this is the process most people who actually think their way into a religion. I am not perfect and this list may not be correct. But it outlines a different picture than a circular belief system. (Also want to state that I say a god, maybe you could use the same process for polytheistic ideals). I don't believe blind faith should be established with anything, but I realize for some people it is just the way it is.
 
Hi ACOT and BJN – you're quite right, it's not circular reasoning, but it does assume certain a priori axioms, as do all scientific investigations – every science advances according to its axioms – if your opponent will not acknowledge the primary axiom, then there's really no point in continuing the discussion.
 
Not quite....the big difference is when science discovers its errors, improves its knowledge on a topic, they change the textbook.

Similarly I suppose, we had the Jews....Jesus updated their book...Mohamed updated that book...Jefferson updated, Joseph Smith updated, .... but we don't have any consensus (like science strives for)...to move forward in a new direction...

Not many scientists are still stuck in a flat earth centric universe...not many surgeons still wear their scrubs from patient to patient....because we learned about communicable diseases and germs...

Any idea when we are gonna have bibles with Parables in green and Metaphor in blue and mythology in yellow? You know so we don't have short earthers?

Nah...instead we say science contains circular reasoning....baby bathwather.


Does the scientific establishment unwittingly suffer from paradigm bias? Does it assume incorrect axioms of existence? | A conversation on TED.com
 
wil said:
Not quite....the big difference is when science discovers its errors, improves its knowledge on a topic, they change the textbook.
Click to expand...

I think you're leaving the current topic for one of your darlings. Circular reasoning or establishing axiom is not the same discussion as evolving knowledge. I would point out that a religion can, and have, evolved it's understanding and interpretation of based on certain sets of axioms. Axioms like the existence of God, the divine nature of Jesus or the infallible writings of Muhammad. From sets of axioms different conclusions can be drawn, some religions hold to different axioms and others to different conclusions.

How one establish these axioms is often, if not always, a matter of faith which can make it circular if the individual choose to believe in God because it says so in the Bible, but that is not always the case. Like you, wil, you haven't established your axioms based on the conclusions you have drawn from your axioms. Have you...?
 
Wil, I would argue that your establishment of belief works within the construct of Jewish beliefs. Each Prophet brought a new piece to the message. Jesus brought a large piece to fill in most of the rest. (Jesus was a Jew, and he stated he came for the Jews). As you said with new discoveries sometimes you revise a book, sometimes you make a new book and discontinue use of the old book for anything but reference. That new book is the Quran IMO. And Mouhammed didn't update it in our opinion, he received it.

I'm not familiar with the Jefferson you refer to, and Joseph Smith did his own update to the old text.
 
Thomas Jefferson, founding father, author of declaration of independence and the Jeffersonian Gospels...

Then of course we have Baha'ullah, Rastas, and more and beyond Abrahamic Tao te Ching, Dharma, Upanishads, Vedas, the Guru Granth Sahib and and more...
 
A Cup Of Tea said:
I think you're leaving the current topic for one of your darlings. Circular reasoning or establishing axiom is not the same discussion as evolving knowledge. I would point out that a religion can, and have, evolved it's understanding and interpretation of based on certain sets of axioms. Axioms like the existence of God, the divine nature of Jesus or the infallible writings of Muhammad. From sets of axioms different conclusions can be drawn, some religions hold to different axioms and others to different conclusions.

How one establish these axioms is often, if not always, a matter of faith which can make it circular if the individual choose to believe in God because it says so in the Bible, but that is not always the case. Like you, wil, you haven't established your axioms based on the conclusions you have drawn from your axioms. Have you...?
Click to expand...
which axioms might they be?

I read, I draw my conclusions based on what I read, and my experiences.

I had the belief without questioning axiom when I was in elementary school.... I graduated.
 
wil said:
which axioms might they be?

I read, I draw my conclusions based on what I read, and my experiences.

I had the belief without questioning axiom when I was in elementary school.... I graduated.
Click to expand...

You're axioms? I don't know, I wasn't accusing you of anything.

I don't know if I'm stretching the definition of axiom now but I know you don't believe in miracles as in water to wine, but in the miracles that surround you every day. We might call that an axiom for arguments sake. You measure what you read and experience according to that axiom, and your reasoning will be based on that axiom when you follow it to it's logical conclusion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top