They stood to loose the promises that God told them they would receive if they obeyed Him.
Thank you.

Let me explain the first verse for you:

If faith is the substance of things hoped for then to have faith we must have substance or in some translations; assurance.
Look up the word assurance in the dictionary.
This is what you should find:

Assurance:
The act of assuring.
A statement or indication that inspires confidence;
A guarantee or pledge:
Freedom from doubt; certainty:

Now tell me where is the guarantee in gambling?

The guarantee lies in the chance that the correct choice will be made.

And thank you again, I understood the first verse and appreciate your point of view on it.
However, the Old English word "faith" stems from Latin "Fidere" or for a word more closer to home, "fidelity" not from the Old English "assuraunce" or the French " guarantee."

Important! Concerning the vernacular, in the 5th century when St. Jerome translated the Bible from the original languages into Latin, Latin was the language of the scholars and the educated people. The Bible was commonly called the Vulgate, the common version. Even after a thousand years, Latin still remained the universal language in Europe.

"Fidelity" is a smelting-pot of all sorts of concepts such as accuracy, constancy, dedication, loyalty, quality and truth.
"Fidere" means, "to trust." Reconsider which languages you decide to concur with in terms of biblical etymology please.

I Kings 22: 19-23

Let's take this instance for example, for this is an recorded example of which I speak. It happens everyday. Here now it is a test of faith. The guarantee is there - so is the gamble. Ahab gambled and chose who to listen to hoping he could make the correct choice based on listening to others. He was wrong, and as a result of the loss of his life I've gained a better understanding of what to do if I were in the same position.

I will answer you in the morning Parietal.
Right now I can hardly keep my eyes open to read what you said. :board2:

Good night. :o

Delroy how about God flooding the entire earth, killing every man, woman and child except Noah his family and a few animals? Isn't this considered genocide? This is just one istant but there are many more.

Delroy how about God flooding the entire earth, killing every man, woman and child except Noah his family and a few animals? Isn't this considered genocide? This is just one istant but there are many more.

No Sir/Ma'am (sorry)
There were numerous warnings. There was the countless messages from Noah telling these people what was going to happen.

It's pretty simple: 'You want to live? Then get on the boat. If you don't want to get on the boat, then you better learn how to swim.'

Now I'll admit that I would've been a scoffer at that point, because (as they say) until that point there was no such thing as rain. Plants were watered kinda the opposite, where the water'd come up from under the ground in a mist. But dude, when I began to see a systematic pattern of animals getting onto a boat of their own accord...that would've been the Capital letter, Subject, Predicate and Proper Punctuation on that subject for me.

The people that drowned chose to do so. They gambled and lost and as a result of their loss, I have gained. Some may consider that evil, but it's like Joseph said...

Gen 50:20.

Unfortunately, the children...on that subject I cannot speak. I am at a loss for knowledge, understanding and hence, words on that stipulative.

Delroy how about God flooding the entire earth, killing every man, woman and child except Noah his family and a few animals? Isn't this considered genocide? This is just one istant but there are many more.

If God had not done that you would not be here today to ask that question. The world would have eventually destroyed itself so to preserve humanity God caused the flood.

Genocide is to destroy an entire race of people. God did not do that.

Also; Noah warned the people of the earth that the flood was coming hundreds of years ahead of time so they had the opportunity to save themselves. If God was a cruel God He could have destroyed all of us without warning.

The people that drowned chose to do so. They gambled and lost and as a result of their loss, I have gained. Some may consider that evil, but it's like Joseph said...



Tell me how did we gain from their loss parietal?
Since you sneeked that part in there.

Whether God warned them or not it is still genocide. Mass killings by your God. Pray tell me. How did Noah message reached the innocent peoples of the New World or the Orient or Africa for that matter who would have been completely ignorant of god's warnings because of where they lived or did they have email then? So innocent humans and animals through no fault of their own had to perish because your God chose to deliver his message of a worldwide deluge through an old man living in the middle of nowhere because he was too lazy to do it himself. I also find it curious that Noah and his family were the only people on earth to have heeded the warning.

There is no justifiable excuse for your god to commit mass killings to redeem mankind then later on send his son Jesus Christ do the same thing after having failed in his initial attempt. Could not your perfect God get it right the first time to prevent so many innocent persons and animals from suffering or is your God a homicidal maniac who enjoys seeing his children/creation suffer? Delroy if you had twelve children and 10 of them disobeyed you, would you put the obedient two on a boat and drown the 10 others or would your compassion and love for them prevail over you anger and disappointment?
When you view some of the actions of God from a rational standpoint you start to see a great deal of absurdity in his behavior and his reasoning. God's be

I am assuming of course this biblical story is true.

Another mass killings of your god is in the story of Sodom and Gomorhea. Why did he kill the innocent children and babies and animals who could not have understood the implications or consequences of the adults' behavior assuming of course this is a true story?

--Looks at Truthseeker and whistles--

I disagree Truthseeker, the people that drowned chose to stay outside of the boat. That was their choice not The Almighty's. They chose to have faith in their ability to swim moreso than in being in a boat.

Consider the movie Titanic: If that piece of wood were big enough for both Rose and Jack and Jack didn't get on in spite of Rose's requests- Could Rose be charged with murder? If you say yes, let me be the first to say, "Tis' you that needs professional help." (Or whatever it was you suggested for Delroy.)

It also looks like you aren't seeking the Truth, truthseeker. Seems to me that the soundest thing to do would be to seek the truth from The One who sent the flood. Wouldn't it? Delroy didn't send any flood and Delroy wasn't there when it happened. Don't ask the wrong person the right questions.

Also, may I point out that once you've already come to a personal conclusion on any given subject, it's not the Truth you seek, but a confirmation of your conviction. Hence, the prefix "con." Reconsider.

Tell me how did we gain from their loss parietal?
Since you sneeked that part in there.

"Sneeked"..."we"? Did I say "we"? I don't remember saying "we." LOL
I'm not the one sneeking...tsk...tsk...
I said, " The people that drowned chose to do so. They gambled and lost and as a result of their loss, I have gained. Some may consider that evil, but it's like Joseph said...Gen 50:20."

Object Lesson: "When ya cyant hear, ya does feel."

It's about taking the information we've learned and
personalizing it. That's the big thing about education. People
can be book smart, but not really intelligent about anything
else. A lot of times they just taking in all this information and
regurgitate it. Trendsheep. It's much more important to process it and
personalize it. To apply it to your world, to your life. You have
to walk the walk, or you can't really report about it honestly.

You know the old story. You have a friend that's going
out with a pretty person, you can't tell him not to go out with
her, you can't tell her not to go out with him. They have to go
through it themselves.
If they aren't ready to hear what you're saying; they're not ready to learn from your experiences, they're not going to. All we can really do is work through our own experiences and hope that someone else
benefits from them who's ready to hear it.

I've read accounts of happenings in The Bible. I'm willing to learn from the mistakes and foolish choices of others both in and out of The Bible. And for everytime I encounter a potential obstacle and with the help of the examples set forth I circumvent the unnecessary... I consider that a gain.

Whether God warned them or not it is still genocide. Mass killings by your God. Pray tell me. How did Noah message reached the innocent peoples of the New World or the Orient or Africa for that matter who would have been completely ignorant of god's warnings because of where they lived or did they have email then?

You're assuming The New World, The Orient and all of Africa was inhabited.

So innocent humans and animals through no fault of their own had to perish because your God chose to deliver his message of a worldwide deluge through an old man living in the middle of nowhere because he was too lazy to do it himself. I also find it curious that Noah and his family were the only people on earth to have heeded the warning.
There is a caliber of man on this planet that thinks both logically, senses the spiritual, embraces both without fear, and without a made up mind and/or conviction. I challenge you to find me five (5) that you and I can agree on. Perhaps, that may aid your curiosity. And I love that word, "perish." What happens after you "perish"? Do you know? I don't think you do, and I say that because you don't look "perished" to me. And if you don't know what happens after you die, how is it that you already decided that "perish" should be associated with something negative? I thought you were seeking the truth, not the concepts of others.

There is no justifiable excuse for your god to commit mass killings to redeem mankind then later on send his son Jesus Christ do the same thing after having failed in his initial attempt.
It's said that GOD creates mostly by using His words and Word. So let's use that as an example. Let's say you want to remove some of your posts from BahamasIssues.com
There's no justifiable excuse for you to commit mass editings of your posts on this discussion board. But since they are your words, you have the power to do that. Heck, if you had a son and you gave them the proper instructions (or he already knew how to edit your posts) he could do it. But because you want your posts removed from BahamasIssues.com does that make you a failure?

Could not your perfect God get it right the first time to prevent so many innocent persons and animals from suffering or is your God a homicidal maniac who enjoys seeing his children/creation suffer?

Again, going on heresay. Death does not always equal suffering. Stop regurgitating/projecting what you've heard and be what you claim to be.
Who or what is innocent? (And for the love of Truth, the very sake of it, please do not come back at me with a post of a dictionary definition. I would very much so like to hear from your point of view YOUR encounters of innocence in your search for truth.) Again, you're assuming God enjoys suffering. In days of old, when good horses were wounded- they were shot. Why?

Delroy if you had twelve children and 10 of them disobeyed you, would you put the obedient two on a boat and drown the 10 others or would your compassion and love for them prevail over you anger and disappointment?
The question was posed to Delroy, mind if I answer as if it were posed for me?
My Answer: That would depend.

When you view some of the actions of God from a rational standpoint you start to see a great deal of absurdity in his behavior and his reasoning.

You mean like claiming to be a truthseeker and providing modes of fallacy for valid consideration in terms of truth? The rational isn't always truth.
"ad populus" and "tu quoque" <<Important terms you may find use for in your search.

I am assuming of course this biblical story is true.

Another mass killings of your god is in the story of Sodom and Gomorhea. Why did he kill the innocent children and babies and animals who could not have understood the implications or consequences of the adults' behavior assuming of course this is a true story?

Read carefully, you'll see Zoar was not destroyed and that nobody actually saw what the angels did after Lot left with his family. How do you know the angels didn't take the children and leave them in Zoar? It seems you've already found your "truth" and from what I've experienced, it's the worst kind.

Delroy if you had twelve children and 10 of them disobeyed you, would you put the obedient two on a boat and drown the 10 others or would your compassion and love for them prevail over you anger and disappointment?

If I had the power like God has to see the 10 causing the death of the whole 12 in the future;
Yes I would.

How did Noah message reached the innocent peoples of the New World or the Orient or Africa for that matter who would have been completely ignorant of god's warnings because of where they lived or did they have email then?
The people on earth were so evil back then until only Noah could hear God's voice. Not even Noah's family could hear God. They were saved because of Noah.


Another mass killings of your god is in the story of Sodom and Gomorhea. Why did he kill the innocent children and babies and animals who could not have understood the implications or consequences of the adults' behavior assuming of course this is a true story?
Sin is a spiritual disease Truthseeker that spreads very quickly. Jesus is the only cure for sin and the people of Sodom and Gomorhea didn't want the cure. “The sins of the parents shall fall upon their children.” Because of the decision of the parents; the children died also.

The people that drowned chose to do so. They gambled and lost and as a result of their loss, I have gained. Some may consider that evil.
It is evil! Didn't they die because they gambled?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by o3parietal
The people that drowned chose to do so. They gambled and lost and as a result of their loss, I have gained. Some may consider that evil.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is evil! Didn't they die because they gambled?

Yes, they died because they gambled and made the wrong choice. But some people consider 'gaining at the expense of others' losses in gambling' evil.

I am trying to show you that it is wrong.

I'm aware of that Delroy. And I still disagree. There is nothing that I can recall (human memory) Christ did on this planet that supports blind faith.
Drinking is a gamble for some people. It is both slammed on and advocated in The Bible. Drinking alcohol does not fit in my lifestyle, therefore it is wrong for me. That doesn't mean it's wrong for everybody.
John the Baptist didn't drink. Christ did.
In spite of Paul's suggestion that a little does you well. In spite of Paul's essays on 'The Kingdom of God not being meat and drink.' In spite of Christ Himself drinking. It is wrong for me. I have decided for me. I've not decided for Paul. Paul cannot decide for me.

I have seen how others have used alcohol, SEEN it vacillate between good, bad, ugly and every possible variation in between. The wisest man in the world (born of both man and woman) said it's a mocker. Yet, this same man being as wise as he was, turned away from The Almighty. Eventually he repented.

Because of the gambles Solomon took with his life (in spite of his wisdom) I've learnt that he is an experienced yet fallible source. The choices and the gambles he made with his own life (guided by God or otherwise) are recorded for me to consider. They are recorded for consideration in conjunction with MY life choices. That is a gift to me. It's something I have gained. I consider it a "cheat sheet."

As blessed a man as Solomon was, I'll be willing to bet one of my very testicles that you Delroy, do not have 300 lovers. As blessed a man as Noah was, I'll bet you my other testicle Delroy that you don't have a vineyard in your background and that you KNOW better than to get both drunk and naked in front of your would-be son.

As a result of their loss, look what I have gained to God's glory.
To get me to even begin to reconsider my views, prove me wrong Delroy.
There's the gamble...there's the faith.
Genesis 50:20

I am convinced now that the only way that I can prove to you that Gambling is wrong is if The Almighty Himself comes down and tell you so.

That saying; I rest my case.

God speed.

According to my dictionary the word "gamble" falls into two categories.
"1 to play games of chance for money or some other stake
2 to take a risk in order to gain some advantage." ©1995 Zane Publishing, Inc. ©1994, 1991, 1988 Simon & Schuster, Inc.

It seems to me that Delroy is talking about the first definition and o3Parietal is using the second definition. It seems to me that the first is the one in question.. The second is just....life!