PDA

View Full Version : ARCHIVE: God and the fire in Colorado



Zakath
June 14th, 2002, 09:57 AM
Here on TOL there are a number of posters who believe that their deity sends trials and calamities (evil?) on the human race for various reasons.

On the other hand, there are some posters who would vehemently deny that view.

I'd like to read your opinion on the following questions:

1. Do you think that God is responsible for the fire consuming over one hundred thousand acres in Colorado? Explain your reasoning regarding why or why not.

2. Have you/your church prayed for the fire to stop?

3. Why do you think it hasn't?

Knight
June 14th, 2002, 10:42 AM
Hey, that fire is only a few miles from my house. In fact my wife's sister had to stay with us a few days "just in case".

God did not start the fire, some bonehead camper started the fire. Yes, I know many Christians think that God orchestrated the fire to show His glory in some unknown and mysterious way. That is a sick and perverted theology for many reason's but I will mention a few.

When God intervenes with man He let's man know He is doing so in a BIG way, He doesn't secretly temp a redneck camper to let the campers fire get out of hand. Second, God has never randomly sent wrath on innocent people for no apparent reason. He has targeted evil groups of people and sent His wrath or instructed His people to bring His wrath to them directly. Lastly, God intervened only when His ultimate plan of bringing Jesus as Savior was in some sort of jeopardy, since Jesus has already performed His saving work here on earth you will see no direct intervention from God until the rapture/tribulation.

missedmarks
June 14th, 2002, 11:11 AM
Read Job, God is involved with this world, but he doesn't start forest fires to punish the wicked.

P.S. Knight is right, but I didn't want to make that the main part of my post :)

Knight
June 14th, 2002, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by missedmarks
Read Job, God is involved with this world, but he doesn't start forest fires to punish the wicked.

P.S. Knight is right, but I didn't want to make that the main part of my post :) Missed, so do you think that everyone in the history of the world that has had tribulation in their life is explained with a "Job" type story? Or was "Job" a specific story about a specific man for a specific reason? It's an easy trap to fall into to take a single story and example in the Bible and attempt to transpose that story or lesson onto every situation. Furthermore, you might want to examine the story of Job and see just exactly what transpired and what God did and didn't do.

Zakath
June 14th, 2002, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by Knight
Hey, that fire is only a few miles from my house. In fact my wife's sister had to stay with us a few days "just in case".I'm sorry for the inconvenience and problems the fire is causing your family, Knight. :(


Knight: God did not start the fire, some bonehead camper started the fire. Yes, I know many Christians think that God orchestrated the fire to show His glory in some unknown and mysterious way. That is a sick and perverted theology for many reason's but I will mention a few.

When God intervenes with man He let's man know He is doing so in a BIG way, He doesn't secretly temp a redneck camper to let the campers fire get out of hand.
I thought your deity was into fires big-time, what with the lake of fire and all. But as for starting earthly fires? How about a redneck farmer?
Samson said to them, "This time I have a right to get even with the Philistines; I will really harm them." So he went out and caught three hundred foxes and tied them tail to tail in pairs. He then fastened a torch to every pair of tails, lit the torches and let the foxes loose in the standing grain of the Philistines. He burned up the shocks and standing grain, together with the vineyards and olive groves. Judges 15:3-5 NIV


Knight: Second, God has never randomly sent wrath on innocent people for no apparent reason. Hmm. So what is your explanation for newborns and perinatal infants dying of cancer?


Knight: He has targeted evil groups of people and sent His wrath or instructed His people to bring His wrath to them directly. So you're saying that, under certain circimstances your God does countenance or even order slaughter everyone in a place, including the unborn. How would the unborn child of someone he dislikes be considered evil?

For example
...The Israelites carried off for themselves all the plunder and livestock of these cities, but all the people they put to the sword until they completely destroyed them, not sparing anyone that breathed... Joshua 11:14

...Then the Lord said to Joshua, "Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged...You shall do to Ai and its king as you did to Jericho and its king, except that you may carry off their plunder and livestock for yourselves. Set an ambush behind the city...When Israel had finished killing all the men of Ai in the fields and in the desert where they had chased them, and when every one of them had been put to the sword, all the Israelites returned to Ai and killed those who were in it. Twelve thousand men and women fell that day-all the people of Ai." Joshua 8:1-2, 24-25



Knight: Lastly, God intervened only when His ultimate plan of bringing Jesus as Savior was in some sort of jeopardy, since Jesus has already performed His saving work here on earth you will see no direct intervention from God until the rapture/tribulation. Based on that, you don't believe in modern day occurences of "divine miracles" or the efficacy of prayers for financial success, health, happy marriages, etc? Wouldn't that count as "direct intervention from God"?

Knight
June 14th, 2002, 12:32 PM
Zakath states...
I thought your deity was into fires big-time, what with the lake of fire and all. But as for starting earthly fires? How about a redneck farmer?Please read my first response. I don't see any Philistines in the Colorado hills and God certainly isn't instructing campers to leave their fires unattended.

You continue...
Hmm. So what is your explanation for newborns and perinatal infants dying of cancer?Due to sin, we live in a fallen world. Tragic things happen, cancer is one of those things. Entropy causes things to break down. There are far worse ways that children die i.e., raped and then murdered these are products of sin (either directly or indirectly) not ordained by God.

You continue
So you're saying that, under certain circimstances your God does countenance or even order slaughter everyone in a place, including the unborn. How would the unborn child of someone he dislikes be considered evil?Because God's plan of sending Savior for the world is complete He no longer needs to intervene the way He did in the past (as I already have stated). But to comment on the point anyway... a just war always has collateral damage it's inevitable, tragic but inevitable.

You continue...
Based on that, you don't believe in modern day occurences of "divine miracles" or the efficacy of prayers for financial success, health, happy marriages, etc? Wouldn't that count as "direct intervention from God"?Correct. I do not believe that God is performing physical miracles anymore. God performed physical miracles for specific reasons like to let the people know that the Jesus was the Messiah or to protect His plan and people like He did many times in the Old Testament etc.

God does however give His people love, comfort, wisdom etc. none of which is a physical miracle but can be just as powerful or even more powerful depending on the situation.

Freak
June 14th, 2002, 02:28 PM
Knight says:

I do not believe that God is performing physical miracles anymore.

Why do you believe this, just curious?

Zakath
June 14th, 2002, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by Knight
Please read my first response. I don't see any Philistines in the Colorado hills and God certainly isn't instructing campers to leave their fires unattended. What's in a name? I've listened to many a sermon in which a Philistine is nothing more than a nickname for anyone who opposed the deity.

Philistines come in many different wrappers. According to the dictionary, a philistine is merely "a smug, ignorant, especially middle-class person who is regarded as being indifferent or antagonistic to artistic and cultural values. ";)


Due to sin, we live in a fallen world. Tragic things happen, cancer is one of those things. Are you using the term "world" in a planetary sense or a universal one? Do you believe in the Christian doctrine termed "original sin"? Whose sin do you believe brought cancer into the world?


Entropy causes things to break down. Do you think that your creator designed entropy into this world, or do you believe it is a function of sin?


There are far worse ways that children die i.e., raped and then murdered these are products of sin (either directly or indirectly) not ordained by God. Why are you so fixated on sexual deviance? You seem to bring up rape or homosexuality in a great many threads... :confused:


Because God's plan of sending Savior for the world is complete He no longer needs to intervene the way He did in the past (as I already have stated). But to comment on the point anyway... a just war always has collateral damage it's inevitable, tragic but inevitable. I find it sad that you will condemn the death of the innocent in abortion, yet reframe the slaughter of innocents by religionists to "collateral damage". :(


Correct. I do not believe that God is performing physical miracles anymore. God performed physical miracles for specific reasons like to let the people know that the Jesus was the Messiah or to protect His plan and people like He did many times in the Old Testament etc. According to your scriptures he did so for almost 5000 years, including quite a while after the death of Jesus of Nazareth. When do you think he stopped and why? Upon what do you base this belief?


God does however give His people love, comfort, wisdom etc. none of which is a physical miracle but can be just as powerful or even more powerful depending on the situation. So the deity can play with neurotransmitters, but not regrow organs or limbs, provide finances or food when believers pray? That's kind of a limited view, don't you think?

Knight
June 14th, 2002, 03:28 PM
Zakath writes...
Are you using the term "world" in a planetary sense or a universal one? Do you believe in the Christian doctrine termed "original sin"? Whose sin do you believe brought cancer into the world?With Adam's sin death became a part of the world.

You continue...
Do you think that your creator designed entropy into this world, or do you believe it is a function of sin?Entropy is NOT a function of sin as I believe that a pile of sticks left to themselves even before the original sin would still become disorganized. However, by adding death to the equation entropy acts on our cells, dna etc. and things such as cancer develop.

You continue...
Why are you so fixated on sexual deviance? You seem to bring up rape or homosexuality in a great many threads.Only with you because I know you do not find such things as wrong.

You continue...
I find it sad that you will condemn the death of the innocent in abortion, yet reframe the slaughter of innocents by religionists to "collateral damage".Collateral damage happens in EVERY war regardless if the war is religious or not. It's a plain and simple unavoidable fact.

You continue...
According to your scriptures he did so for almost 5000 years, including quite a while after the death of Jesus of Nazareth. When do you think he stopped and why? Upon what do you base this belief?I have already answered this question but I will do so again. God used physical miracles to keep His plan of sending a Savior to the world from being thwarted, He used miracles as "signs" and He used miracles as evidence that Jesus was the Messiah and that His disciples were for real. He no longer does physical miracles because currently there are no reason for physical miracles and God knows that most miracles turned people away from Him. Since He desires that men choose Him why would He want to do something that turns the majority away? Generally, in the Bible miracles left men not wanting God but wanting a subsequent miracle.

You continue...
So the deity can play with neurotransmitters, but not regrow organs or limbs, provide finances or food when believers pray? That's kind of a limited view, don't you think?The Deity can DO anything He wants (within the boundaries of His reality). But what He wants is for men to choose Him on their own free-will. He does not want men to choose Him because there is no other option. Furthermore, by providing wisdom man could gain finances or food if they used their wisdom "wisely". :D

cirisme
June 14th, 2002, 04:51 PM
Hey, zakath, why didn't you bring up the verse where God orders Isarael, to kill all men, women and children?

Oh that's right, because I have a very good defense for that. :D

Goose
June 14th, 2002, 08:35 PM
God spoke to me and said, "Goose, Behold, for this summer I will cause a great dryness in the west and will smite My people with fire. For they have done that which is meet for destruction by baptism of fire."

NOT!

1 Kings 19:12 "...and after the earthquake a fire; [but] the LORD [was] not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice."

Pilgrimagain
June 14th, 2002, 09:26 PM
Perhaps the more important question for the Christian is who will we be in the midst of such tragedies and how will we respond?

Sometimes I'd like to ask God why he lets such things happen, but I'm afraid he'd ask me the same question.

Zakath
June 15th, 2002, 06:09 AM
Originally posted by cirisme
Hey, zakath, why didn't you bring up the verse where God orders Isarael, to kill all men, women and children?

Oh that's right, because I have a very good defense for that. :D

Do you believe that YHWH spoke through the OT prophets and war leaders, including Moses, Joshua and Samuel?

Let me know your answer, think about it really hard if you need to.

I'll share some interesting insights about the type of deity the Jews and Christians claim to serve, using the Christian Bible as a reference...

But not until Monday. :)

NOTE:
I'll be away until Monday, crusin' the Chesapeake crewing the final voyage of the Wake Up call. Give us a call on the marine band if you're in the area...

'Till Monday, then...

"Come Monday, it'll be alright.
Come Monday, I'll be holdin' you tight.
I spent four lonely days in a brown LA haze; and I just want you back by my side..."
J.B. - Chief musician of COBO (Church of Buffet, Orthodox)

cirisme
June 16th, 2002, 07:49 AM
Do you believe that YHWH spoke through the OT prophets and war leaders, including Moses, Joshua and Samuel?

Hey, not until you anser my question...


Hey, zakath, why didn't you bring up the verse where God orders Isarael, to kill all men, women and children?

Oh wait, that was rhetorical... I think. :o

To answer your question, yes. And trust me about "proving"God is some blood thirsty nut, I've studied this alot and became a Christian because of it.

Muhahahahaha.......(evil laugh :D)

Zakath
June 17th, 2002, 08:43 AM
Originally posted by cirisme

To answer your question, yes.
Thanks for your reply, cirisme. Perhaps now you can answer another question for us...

Do you think that the OT prophets, specifically Moses and Samuel, were actually speaking for YHWH and accurately communicating his desire and intent when they issued a "thus saith the Lord" type statement?


And trust me about "proving"God is some blood thirsty nut, I've studied this alot and became a Christian because of it.Proving? I didn't say anything about "proving".How can one "prove" anything about the character of a fictional being? ;)

Zakath
June 17th, 2002, 08:48 AM
Knight posted...
...When God intervenes with man He let's man know He is doing so in a BIG way, He doesn't secretly temp a redneck camper to let the campers fire get out of hand.

Actually, it turns out it wasn't a "redneck camper" but a Park Service employee burning a letter from her estranged husband. See link for article. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61436-2002Jun16.html)

Maybe your deity is using her broken heart to symbolize his own... sounds a bit like some of silly things the OT prophets used to do.... You know; running around naked, marrying prostitutes, and chucking pottery around...

Life certainly is odd...

Gerald
June 17th, 2002, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by Knight
The Deity can DO anything He wants (within the boundaries of His reality). But what He wants is for men to choose Him on their own free-will. He does not want men to choose Him because there is no other option.

I suppose that, on a human level, that sentiment is analagous to this question:

Which would you prefer? That another person do what you want because he genuinely wants to, or because you'll subject him to a world of hurt if he doesn't?

For me, there is no difference. If the person does what I want, for whatever reason, the result is the same.

Zakath
June 17th, 2002, 12:28 PM
Zakath: Are you using the term "world" in a planetary sense or a universal one? Do you believe in the Christian doctrine termed "original sin"? Whose sin do you believe brought cancer into the world?

Knight: With Adam's sin death became a part of the world.
You missed the first two questions, Knight...


Entropy is NOT a function of sin as I believe that a pile of sticks left to themselves even before the original sin would still become disorganized. However, by adding death to the equation entropy acts on our cells, dna etc. and things such as cancer develop. Current thinking (last 20 years or so) is that cancer is due to changes in the genetic material of somatic cells caused by injury or viruses. This tends to rule out entropy as a cause of diseases like cancers. Besides, since you appear to view entropy as a function of time (your comment "left to themselves"), babies wouldn't have had sufficient time for entropy to damage their cells.


Zakath questioned Knight about why he continues to focus on sexual deviance.
Knight: Only with you because I know you do not find such things as wrong. This is a gross misrepresentation of my position. You are, in essence, lying by omission. Hardly very "Christian" behavior, Knight.


Zakath: I find it sad that you will condemn the death of the innocent in abortion, yet reframe the slaughter of innocents by religionists to "collateral damage".

Knight: Collateral damage happens in EVERY war regardless if the war is religious or not. It's a plain and simple unavoidable fact. You are engaging in a fine example of "doublespeak" Knight. You accuse an opponent of an action you consider evil in emotionlly charged rhetoric and when the tables are turned you try to divert the issue by using propaganda terminology from military psyops. :rolleyes:

Why not stop tap dancing and admit the facts, Knight. You and your religion supports and approves of the butchery of babies as certainly as those you call abortionists. Calling that butchery by military terminology does not change the facts.


...God used physical miracles to keep His plan of sending a Savior to the world from being thwarted, He used miracles as "signs" and He used miracles as evidence that Jesus was the Messiah and that His disciples were for real. He no longer does physical miracles because currently there are no reason for physical miracles... But doesn't you're deity have disciples today? When did he stop having to prove they were real? 33AD? 70AD? 120AD? 324AD?


... God knows that most miracles turned people away from Him.Since He desires that men choose Him why would He want to do something that turns the majority away? Generally, in the Bible miracles left men not wanting God but wanting a subsequent miracle. Wanting a subsequent miracle is hardly the same thing as rejecting someone based on a miracle. Repeatability is one of the foundations of the scientific method. If something is not repeatable, it is difficult, if not impossible, to assess it scientifically.


The Deity can DO anything He wants (within the boundaries of His reality).That's quite a vague limiting statement. What types of boundaries does a deity have? Don't you believe the Christian deity is "omni" in several different areas?


But what He wants is for men to choose Him on their own free-will. He does not want men to choose Him because there is no other option. If that is true, then why all the "bully boy" tactics over the centuries?
Man doesn't love YHWH enough, so the entire human race is condemned.
Man doesn't love YHWH enough, so he sends a flood to wipe out man woman and child.
Man doesn't love YHWH enough so he sends fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah.
Man doesn't love YHWH enough so the Romans sack Jerusalem in 70 AD and destroy Solomon's Temple.
The Bible is replete with YHWH's heavy-handed, "obey me or I'll destroy you" attitude.

You describe the situation as if there were another option. If your deity is really "God", then it seems that the only two options are obedience or oblivion.

Knight
June 17th, 2002, 01:32 PM
Zakath, no offense but you and I do not seem to communicate very well. I will count it as my fault. I say something and you take the exact opposite way, you say something and I probably take it the exact opposite way. Why is this so? I don't know! But, I do not have enough time or desire to correct all the miscommunications between the two of us.

Zakath
June 17th, 2002, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by Knight
Zakath, no offense but you and I do not seem to communicate very well. A valid observation, no offense taken.


I will count it as my fault. If you insist. ;)


I say something and you take the exact opposite way, you say something and I probably take it the exact opposite way. Why is this so? I don't know! I have a good idea why and will tell you if you wish.


But, I do not have enough time or desire to correct all the miscommunications between the two of us. I was just getting warmed up, but withdrawing from the field is your decision, Knight.

Have a nice day.

cirisme
June 17th, 2002, 02:52 PM
Do you think that the OT prophets, specifically Moses and Samuel, were actually speaking for YHWH and accurately communicating his desire and intent when they issued a "thus saith the Lord" type statement?

I'll bite: yes. Trust me, zakath, I've heard EVERYTHING. BTW, how was your trip to the Chesapeake?

Zakath
June 18th, 2002, 08:02 AM
Originally posted by cirisme
BTW, how was your trip to the Chesapeake?
It was very nice and relaxing, thanks. :)


I'll bite: yes. Trust me, zakath, I've heard EVERYTHING. So I'll probably not trot out anything you haven't heard, but bear in mind that these threads have many readers who don't post, so let's view it as educating them... :)

If you agree that in the following reference Samuel is speaking for YHWH,
Samuel said to Saul, "I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord . This is what the Lord Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' " - I Samuel 15:1-3then YHWH commands the slaughter of children and infants.

It is interesting to note that the verb translated as "destroy" is "charam" which describes sacrificing something to a deity by destroying (killing, burning, etc) it. In essence, not only is YHWH calling for the butchering of children and infants, he is, in effect, requiring human sacrifice.

Comments?

Zakath
June 18th, 2002, 08:20 AM
I scrolled back over the posts here and do you realize that not a single religionist has even attempted to answer two of the original 3 questions about the Colorado fire...

Here are the two that remain unanswered again:

2. Have you/your church prayed for the fire to stop?

3. Why do you think it hasn't?

C'mon folks, you can do better than this!

cirisme
June 18th, 2002, 08:40 AM
Comments?

Just one...


It is interesting to note that the verb translated as "destroy" is "charam" which describes sacrificing something to a deity by destroying (killing, burning, etc) it. In essence, not only is YHWH calling for the butchering of children and infants, he is, in effect, requiring human sacrifice.

The word charam means "devoted" or "under the ban." The spoils they took were "devoted" to God, whereas "under the ban" would be used in reference to executing someone for their sins. So, the spoils were devoted to God whereas the people were "under the ban." Leviticus 27:28, 27:29

Hope that clears things up... :)

cirisme
June 18th, 2002, 08:42 AM
Have you/your church prayed for the fire to stop?

Yes. :)


Why do you think it hasn't?

Because the firefighters aren't fighting it much. :)

Pilgrimagain
June 18th, 2002, 08:43 AM
my church has not prayed for the fire to stop though we have prayed for those hurt by the fire.

Again, I have to say that we don't ask the same questions you do, instead we ask, "as people of faith, what will our response be?"

Evangelion
June 18th, 2002, 08:55 AM
Judging by Cirisme's comments, perhaps everyone should be praying for better firefighters?

;)

cirisme
June 18th, 2002, 09:06 AM
LOL, ev!

Actually, the governor or fire-chief kept the fighters from fighting until just recently, for safety concerns. The fire has been blowing on itself, so it has been relatively safe. Incredibly, not a single person(to my knowledge) has died in this fire. Incredibly positive.. :UP:

Evangelion
June 18th, 2002, 09:09 AM
Wow, that's fantastic! :up:

:)

Zakath
June 18th, 2002, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by cirisme


The word charam means "devoted" or "under the ban." The spoils they took were "devoted" to God, whereas "under the ban" would be used in reference to executing someone for their sins. So, the spoils were devoted to God whereas the people were "under the ban." Leviticus 27:28, 27:29

Hope that clears things up... :)

Not really, cherry picking a meaning to suit you while ignoring context doesn't serve your argument well. Here's the entire entry from Strongs to demonstrate my point:

02763 charam {khaw-ram'}

a primitive root; TWOT - 744,745; v

AV - destroy 34, utterly 10, devote 2, accursed 1, consecrate 1,
forfeited 1, flat nose 1, utterly to make away 1, slay 1; 52

1) to ban, devote, destroy utterly, completely destroy, dedicate for
destruction, exterminate
1a) (Hiphil)

1a1) to prohibit (for common use), ban
1a2) to consecrate, devote, dedicate for destruction
1a3) to exterminate, completely destroy
1b) (Hophal)
1b1) to be put under the ban, be devoted to destruction
1b2) to be devoted, be forfeited
1b3) to be completely destroyed
2) to split, slit, mutilate (a part of the body)
2a) (Qal) to mutilate
2b) (Hiphil) to divide

The spoils were devoted to be destroyed, not stored up somewhere. That is the point of the little incident following this story where Samuel, in YHWH's name, removes the kingship from Saul's house because Saul did not destroy everything as he was commanded.

cirisme
June 18th, 2002, 01:15 PM
The spoils were devoted to be destroyed, not stored up somewhere.

Exactly how does this disagree with my point?

Zakath
June 18th, 2002, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by cirisme


Exactly how does this disagree with my point? The point is that YHWH considered the human children and infants as sacrifices dedicated to destruction along with the animals and goods.

That says volumes about the character of YHWH.

cirisme
June 18th, 2002, 01:32 PM
And you say I cherry pick definitions!

Zakath
June 18th, 2002, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by cirisme
And you say I cherry pick definitions! And here I thought you were going to be able to refute my point...

Are you claiming that Saul got it correct by not killing everything and Samuel got it wrong? If that's true, then why did YHWH remove the kingship from Saul for disobedience?

cirisme
June 18th, 2002, 03:51 PM
Are you claiming that Saul got it correct by not killing everything and Samuel got it wrong? If that's true, then why did YHWH remove the kingship from Saul for disobedience?

No, I'm claiming that you're a hypocrite. You say something, I provide a definition to prove that something wrong. You claim I picked a paticular definition because I like it, and you go on and do the very same thing you accuse me of...


The point is that YHWH considered the human children and infants as sacrifices dedicated to destruction along with the animals and goods.

I agree with "dedicated to destruction" but I don't see anything in the text or definition that would indicate "sacrifice."

:)

Zakath
June 19th, 2002, 08:50 AM
cirisme,

Ad hominmen arguments don't go very far to refute my point.


I agree with "dedicated to destruction" but I don't see anything in the text or definition that would indicate "sacrifice."

I think you're being to narrow in your use of the word. You've probably read the Christian scriptures where believers are told to present themselves as "living sacrifices". Jews and Christians both provide "sacrifice of praise" with their words. Why don't you think that obeying a divine order to utterly destroy something or someone could be classifiable as a sacrifice? Wasn't that the point of the ritual slaughters and offerings of blood and burnt flesh in Israel? Those were sacrifices as well. All the authors have done is provide a situation where human victims were used instead of animals.

Would a definition of "sacrifice" help? Here you go...

Sacrifice - noun

1. The act of offering something to a deity in propitiation or homage, especially the ritual slaughter of an animal or a person.

2. A victim offered in this way.

from "he American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition"

It appears that "sacrifices" describe the victims of Saul's activity very well.

Pilgrimagain
June 19th, 2002, 09:16 AM
and now the plot thickens...

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/19/national/19FIRE.html?todaysheadlines

What was going though her head

Zakath
June 19th, 2002, 09:58 AM
Is this a case of "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned"? ;)

Knight
June 19th, 2002, 10:44 AM
Guys... let me tell ya it's orange outside!

I live in a S.W. suburb of Denver called Lakewood which is north of the fire by 20 miles or so. But yesterday and today have been awful. The smell of smoke is thick and your eyes are burning and itchy from the invisible ash and smoke. Sometimes you can see ash falling like snow, I even have burned pine needles falling in my back yard!

Zakath
June 19th, 2002, 11:00 AM
Have you made plans to move the wife and kids if the situation arises???

Knight
June 19th, 2002, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by Zakath
Have you made plans to move the wife and kids if the situation arises??? Well, we are so far from the fire I do not think that evacuating will be necessary. It's just the smoke and ash that is a little bothersome.

I just went outside to take a picture and show you but you really can't tell much by taking photo's.

Zakath
June 19th, 2002, 11:43 AM
Try one at night...

Knight
June 20th, 2002, 03:12 PM
Zakath, check this out.... (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2492)

cirisme
June 20th, 2002, 05:13 PM
I think you're being to narrow in your use of the word. You've probably read the Christian scriptures where believers are told to present themselves as "living sacrifices".

Yes, meaning you love the Lord more than yourself...


Jews and Christians both provide "sacrifice of praise" with their words. Why don't you think that obeying a divine order to utterly destroy something or someone could be classifiable as a sacrifice?

Perhaps because of the context of the verse.


Samuel said to Saul, "I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord . This is what the Lord Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' " - I Samuel 15:1-3

The context indicates that we should use the definition "under the ban" for this word rather than sacrifice. You simply can't ignore the context...

Zakath
June 20th, 2002, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by Knight
Zakath, check this out.... (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2492)
Impressive clouds, I've been close to several forest fires and seem to recall woodsmoke was darker ... :confused:

Knight
June 20th, 2002, 07:12 PM
Originally posted by Zakath

Impressive clouds, I've been close to several forest fires and seem to recall woodsmoke was darker ... :confused: Hmmmm.... most wood fires have a very white looking smoke if ya think about it. Furthermore, this smoke is miles away and the sun is hitting the smoke pretty hard.

The big difference between the smoke plume and a cloud is that the smoke plume changes dramatically in a matter of minutes while a regular cloud can look very stationary for a long time.

cirisme
June 21st, 2002, 07:23 PM
Impressive clouds, I've been close to several forest fires and seem to recall woodsmoke was darker ... :confused:

Zakath, you have to remember that we haven't had much moisture here in CO.(about 2% of normal, several cities are considering water rations) Without all the green stuff, there isn't as much to produce smoke.

Prisca
June 21st, 2002, 11:00 PM
I'm reposting the following from the other thread. I didn't see this thread until I did some searching for where you had doubted Knight's credibility.


I said, "I live about five miles closer to the fire than Knight, so I can certainly vouch for him. The smoke plume is amazing. It has even been the cause of thunderstorms to the east of the fire. (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_1205533,00.html) The air in my neighborhood has sometimes had a “foggy” appearance and a strong, smoky smell. When I first saw the plume, I thought it was a thunderhead, but as the sunlight began to glow with an eerie orange color, there was no mistaking that this was smoke.

Knight
June 21st, 2002, 11:18 PM
Actually Becky Zakath is right about me. I have this strange personality disorder in which I am compelled to take photographic images of thunderstorm clouds and show them to people and attempt to fool them into thinking they are smoke plumes from forest fires. I have been exposed, what can I say? How can I ever redeem myself?

Zakath
June 22nd, 2002, 04:57 AM
In my professional opinion, your recent actions sound more like mild paranoia, than what you described.

I merely made a comment and asked a question about a photograph. I never actually stated that the original photo you posted wasn't smoke. You've apparently never run across the term "cloud of smoke"?

"The men of Israel had arranged with the ambush that they should send up a great cloud of smoke from the city..."Judges 20:38

"Then the Lord will create over all of Mount Zion and over those who assemble there a cloud of smoke by day and a glow of flaming fire by night; over all the glory will be a canopy." Is. 4:5


Why are you acting so sensitive, Knight?

cirisme
June 22nd, 2002, 09:55 AM
I have been exposed, what can I say?

You can be like the government and deny it ever happened ;)

Zakath
June 23rd, 2002, 11:06 AM
cirisme,

How about taking a crack at my first question...

cirisme
June 23rd, 2002, 02:55 PM
1. Do you think that God is responsible for the fire consuming over one hundred thousand acres in Colorado? Explain your reasoning regarding why or why not.

No. A forest service woman burned a love letter. :)

Zakath
June 23rd, 2002, 07:27 PM
So, in your opinion, a human action can remove the deity from the chain of resonsibility?

EHHarrington
June 24th, 2002, 08:26 AM
Apperantly human sin takes precedence over divine interaction. Just think, if she had been a true Christian and not divorced her husband none of this would have happened. Too bad God isn't powerful enough to step in though and prevent massive property damage and the deaths of the four firemen.

cirisme
June 24th, 2002, 08:28 AM
What responsibility, zakath? This is entirely man's doing, and it is entirely man's responsibility.

EHHarrington
June 24th, 2002, 08:39 AM
So if your children started a fire that was going to burn down the house and kill more of your children would you say, "It's entirely the children's responsibility. I don't need to step in." Or would you intervene and show you have more compassion than your god?

cirisme
June 24th, 2002, 08:54 AM
If those kids were grown and gone, yes.

cirisme
June 24th, 2002, 08:58 AM
Think of it this way, with a fire over 100,000 acres and only four people dead, how is it God didn't intervene?

EHHarrington
June 24th, 2002, 10:03 AM
No single person was in direct danger of dying and yet four people died. Nice cop out for your god though. BTW, I'm really glad you're not my father. Please tell me you don't have children.

Zakath
June 24th, 2002, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by cirisme
Think of it this way, with a fire over 100,000 acres and only four people dead, how is it God didn't intervene?
I find if fascinating how religionists demonstrate such amazing blindness about things outside their theological presuppositions. Of course, perhaps crisisme believes in an unorthodox view of the Christian deity that renders it powerless or abstinent is day-to-day events.

Prisca
June 29th, 2002, 12:36 AM
You said, “Of course, perhaps crisisme believes in an unorthodox view of the Christian deity that renders it powerless or abstinent is day-to-day events."
It sounds to me like crisisme believes in a God who was able to create beings who possess a will of their own, independent of His. Unorthodox? Maybe. Biblical? Absolutely.

Jer. 32:35 ‘And they built the high places of Baal which are in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I did not command them, nor did it come into My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.’ (http://www.theologyonline.com/photopost/index.php?photo=94):cry:

Prisca
June 29th, 2002, 12:48 AM
Zakath, I’m disappointed by your dishonesty concerning the following posts to Knight. First you said:

“Impressive clouds, I've been close to several forest fires and seem to recall woodsmoke was darker ....:confused:"
And then you said…

“I merely made a comment and asked a question about a photograph. I never actually stated that the original photo you posted wasn't smoke. You've apparently never run across the term ‘cloud of smoke’?”
Despite your atheistic beliefs, I thought you had more integrity than this. What happened?

Evangelion
June 29th, 2002, 01:52 AM
We thrashed this out ad nauseum on the Fellowship board. The entire argument sprang from a simple misunderstanding on Knight's part.

It is, in fact, "dishonest" to pretend that this is still a live issue.

Zakath
June 29th, 2002, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by Becky
Zakath, I?m disappointed by your dishonesty concerning the following posts to Knight. It wasn't dishonesty, and your "disappointment" moves me not an inch, Becky. It's just a photo. Besides, Knight's already threatened to ban me for daring to question him...

Perhaps you should communicate with the allegedly injured party (Knight) before trying to jump on a non-existent bandwagon. :)

cirisme
June 29th, 2002, 10:44 AM
Becky,


It sounds to me like crisisme believes in a God who was able to create beings who possess a will of their own, independent of His. Unorthodox? Maybe. Biblical? Absolutely.

You judge me correctly. :D

Evangelion
June 29th, 2002, 11:08 AM
Hey, can I judge Cirisme too? Can I? Can I? ;)

cirisme
June 29th, 2002, 11:30 AM
Only if you pay my multi-million dollar legal fees. :p

Prisca
June 29th, 2002, 01:26 PM
You said, “The entire argument sprang from a simple misunderstanding on Knight's part.

It is, in fact, "dishonest" to pretend that this is still a live issue.”

You call this a misunderstanding? Come on Evangelion. You can’t possibly read the above comments and continue to call it a misunderstanding! You and Zak are cut from the same cloth when it comes to simply admitting you jumped to conclusions. What a lot of dancing around just to avoid offering an apology!

I thought it was only fair to Knight to compare the comments so that others could see for themselves that this was no misunderstanding. Since I haven’t been around for about a week, I didn’t realize that this was a “dead” issue.

Prisca
June 29th, 2002, 01:38 PM
You said, “It wasn't dishonesty, and your ‘disappointment’ moves me not an inch, Becky. It's just a photo.”

Whether my “disappointment” moves you “not an inch” or not is beside the point. I’m pointing out that you violated the honest and sometimes humble character that you have tried to present in the discussions I’ve had with you. All of this could have been avoided by simply admitting an error in judgment and then offering an apology.


You said, “Besides, Knight's already threatened to ban me for daring to question him.”

This was not a case of questioning him. It was a case of falsely accusing someone of being dishonest. Had Knight or anyone else done the same to you or Evangelion, the matter would not have been dropped so quickly or quietly. But since Knight has apparently let it go, so will I.

Flipper
June 29th, 2002, 01:46 PM
This was not a case of questioning him. It was a case of falsely accusing someone of being dishonest. Had Knight or anyone else done the same to you or Evangelion, the matter would not have been dropped so quickly or quietly.

Riiiiiiight...

Is the sky in Beckyland really rose-colored, or is it just your glasses? ;-)

Zakath
June 29th, 2002, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by Becky
Whether my ?disappointment? moves you ?not an inch? or not is beside the point.
Obviously not for me, or I wouldn't have bothered to bring it up.


I?m pointing out that you violated the honest and sometimes humble character that you have tried to present in the discussions I?ve had with you. I'm not a bad sort, I just have a bad reaction to people making mountains out of molehills...

All of this could have been avoided by simply admitting an error in judgment and then offering an apology.Translation:"All this could have been avoided by going along with the Administrator." Apologize for a "cloud of smoke"? Why? Knight and a group of posters had three days worth of posts turning the non-issue into a separate topic called "That is not a cloud!" Before passing judgment on me, take a look at that topic, where the interchange between Evangelion and Knight took place. You will note that I did not post there and was not part of that entire discussion.

This was not a case of questioning him. It was a case of falsely accusing someone of being dishonest. When Knight can no longer discern the difference between a comment and a "false accusation" it would appear that he's wearing his feelings on his sleeve and needs to back off. I'd make the same recommendation to anyone else. Including myself.

Had Knight or anyone else done the same to you or Evangelion, the matter would not have been dropped so quickly or quietly.I cannot speak for Evangelion, but I am regularly excoriated on this site because I dare to question things. It's only my easy-going good nature that keeps me posting. All Knight has to do to be rid of me is either PM me and tell me that I am no longer welcome to post (I will not post where I am not wanted) or cancel my ID. Either way, I'll merely "slap the dust from my sandals" and move on. No big deal.

But since Knight has apparently let it go, so will I. But not until after making how many posts on the topic???;)

Prisca
June 29th, 2002, 08:22 PM
Zakath, you are easy-going, but you are also incorrigible and stubborn. How one human being can exhibit these three qualities, I’ll never understand!;)

Prisca
June 29th, 2002, 08:23 PM
Flipper,

Trust me, it's my glasses!

Goose
June 29th, 2002, 10:28 PM
Becky, I can sympathise with you.

Flipper
June 30th, 2002, 11:47 PM
Becky:


Trust me, it's my glasses!

Graciously handled :)

Zakath
July 1st, 2002, 06:51 AM
Originally posted by Becky
Zakath, you are easy-going, but you are also incorrigible and stubborn. How one human being can exhibit these three qualities, I’ll never understand!;)
Maybe I'm just a multi-faceted individual. :D

Prisca
July 1st, 2002, 05:05 PM
Well, that's better than being two-faced! ;)

Zakath
July 1st, 2002, 06:15 PM
Remember the old T-shirt:

Roses are red
Violets are blue
I'm a schizophrenic
And so am I.

Prisca
July 1st, 2002, 06:37 PM
Zak;)

Zakath
July 1st, 2002, 06:48 PM
Cute, in a demented sort of way.
I like it!:)