An "iron chariot?"Admiral Breetai wrote:SpaceWizard wrote:
Are you SERIOUS? Kermit the Frog's ugly cousin could beat God?
The same God who made the Heaven and the Earth (i.e. the universe) in a day?
What did Yoda ever do to match that? Move an X-wing? Become a senile old ghost? Oh boy, watch out God! :D
If that's a true story, I've been giving too much credit.
and his supporters defend the out come of that match no less!! His claim was because god jobbed out to an Iron chariot he had clearly shown some type of limits that invalidated his higher end feats and thus allowed Yoda a win and a very easy win
never mind that in the scene in question it was an angel doing the jobbing.
Typical warsie red-herring... and not exactly new.. as well as misleading, since there were 500 iron chariots... not that it matters: for if one accepts the iron chariots in Judges 1:19, then one also accepts that God made the universe; so that implies that he could also beat 500 stupid iron chariots... or 500 googleplexes of them, it wouldn't matter!
Likewise, an angel could beat 500 chariots, that's plain enough from what I know of Angelology.
So obviously this would be a test of Judah's faith, and he failed-- i.e. he didn't follow God's law, or made a presumption that his will would always be matched by God's will, regardless of anything else he did.
In this case, it could be as simple as the scriptural saying, "thou shalt not tempt the Lord they God--" i.e. Judah bit off WAY more than he could chew, by taking on such legions without God instructing him to do so: i.e. God is not unconditionally "on the side of the Jewish people" or others who simply pay lip-service to him-- even while they choose to break faith and disobey his law!
Saying that God was beaten by Iron Chariots, however, is as nonsensical as saying that the Diaspora, the Holocaust etc. and everything else prove that God's law is stupid-- even though modern Jewish scholars claim that such disasters are due to a failure of the Jews to adhere to the law (i.e. by appointing of Kings against direct prohibitions, failing to adhere to scriptural requirements regarding keeping and bearing arms, or even "Thou Shalt Not Steal or covet" vs. entertaining Marxist doctrine etc).
As Jesus said, "Think not that I am come to destroy, but to fulfill: verily, not one jot or tittle of the law will I change, until heaven and earth shall pass." In other words, he was attempting to restore Israel from its corruption of the original law's meaning; and when they refused, instead choosing to follow the Sanhedrin, then they thereby condemned themselves to the events that followed, since they thereby broke faith with God (vs. rejecting Jesus's divinity-- rather than their own), by breaking faith and sullying their values.
As a graduate of a famous Christian university (though with a professional degree), I have to say that this type of cherry-picking is just par for the Warsie course, by completely ignoring contexts and everything else, selecting at will; or more appropriately-- to borrow a phrase: "no matter how many gnats you strain out, it still ain't kosher if you swallow a camel!" :-D
In short, it shows up their erratic thinking in all other things as well... only too accurately, I'm afraid.
Consider: they take ONE example, and twist it entirely out of context to make their point-- and ignore everything else, even CREATING THE WHOLE FRICKING UNIVERSE... despite that this also means that God existed BEFORE the universe: which is physically IMPOSSIBLE!
And this, in turn, means that God is beyond physics.
But this is all ignored, since it doesn't suit their desired conclusion... just like everything else. So they play "Twister," again... and LOSE, big-time.
Sound familiar? I used to think it was bad when they twisted George Lucas's words, and everyone else-- putting their own words in his mouth, and then accusing dissenters of "disagreeing with Lucas...."
But this really takes the communion-wafer... but it's typical of grandeuristic, pseudo-intellectual secularists: i.e. they deny the existence of God-- only so they can fill the role themslves.
And it's not even new: just look at Henry VIII,--or even Pope Byzantius VIII, both of whom usurped all powers of church and state unto themselves, i.e. "playing God."
But I'm surprising no one, by observing that Wong's got a similar God-complex... one look at his websites will convince even the most die-hard skeptic of that.
