The GOD Thread~

[Totenkindly]

True but I said he doesn't seem to agree meaning that his responses to me seem to suggest that he feels Christians are worse when they exhibit less than ideal behavior for religious reasons. Actually that is exactly what he said and I purposely mentioned him in that last post so he could be a part of the conversation. I'm not putting words in his mouth nor was that my intention. I'm simply going off of what he said himself.

Again?

I was talking to you, so why are you again trying to tell me what you think Nico thinks? I'd be talking to Nico if I wanted to understand what he thought. I just lost interest in continuing.

 

[iNtrovert]

Again?

I was talking to you, so why are you again trying to tell me what you think Nico thinks? I'd be talking to Nico if I wanted to understand what he thought. I just lost interest in continuing.

Well initially I wasn’t talking to you. My responses where to him and I wasn’t sure if he wanted to continue the conversation and I also wasn't sure if you were aware of his part in the conversation. I already told you I mentioned him so he could join the conversation. I only told you what I felt he was saying because you brought him up a second time and I didn't want you to think I was being malicious in mentioning him. It’s hard to tell what people mean over the internet and I’d rather be through and clear than vague and misunderstood.

 

[iNtrovert]

The late great Senza told me something in the line of God to be a kind, forgiving person is a new concept of man as their expectation have changed and that it used to be power, obedience, vengeance many millenniums ago.

I think it makes a lot of sense.

The Jews were constantly under threat of existence therefore survival was a constant concern; therefore a powerful God is what they wanted who wanted obedience from his followers and vengeance were his lessons to both infidels and his followers who didn't follow him properly - atleast this was the justification for harm that fell on them. However, then God came to Europe. And Europe changed God because what they wanted from God was different esp after the 17th century.

The cannon of the bible doesn't follow that line of thought. Also, early christian leaders were Jews.

 

[Riva]

The cannon of the bible doesn't follow that line of thought.

Do you mean to say that god was always meant to be kind and forgiving? I did see you context based arguments in this thread. You seem to have had a lot of effort put behind finding 'reasons or excuses' to find out why god is the way he is/was in certain books, rather than coming to the conclusion most people arrive at.

The context people. Have to consider that when he-who-must-not-be-named cursed all those people.

 

[iNtrovert]

Do you mean to say that god was always meant to be kind and forgiving? I did see you context based arguments in this thread. You seem to have had a lot of effort put behind finding 'reasons or excuses' to find out why god is the way he is/was in certain books, rather than coming to the conclusion most people arrive at.

The context people. Have to consider that when he-who-must-not-be-named cursed all those people.

I mean to say that the assertion that God’s nature was changed, good or bad, in the Bible is not supported by the canon of the bible. The New Testament which is the primary foundation for Christian doctrine was cannoned in Carthage 397 AD well before the 17th century. The gospels themselves which deal with the fulfillment of the law are dated even before that so 17th Century frame of mind would have no influence over them.

The reason why I can’t come to the conclusion that “most people arrive at” is because most people are ill-informed. If you want to challenge my assertions that’s a conversation we can have but if you’re going to make a baseless claim about what the bible says on a surface level then I have no reason to take your assertions seriously. Most of my context claims just required a little bit of reading form the actual bible and not snap shop pieces of the text that non-believers post on the internet.

 

[Avocado]

Haughtiness and disdain for difference in belief. Some believers seem inclined to take it upon themselves to play the role of God and act as judge, jury, and executioner. Recently it was put forth that non-believers are mentally deficient unless they either convert or kill themselves. Ironically those without a written code of ethics often seem to behave more civilly. That sort of sentiment is what makes me empathize with his tone, regardless of my personal beliefs. Ironically I have come to this thread before to celebrate what I believe, but I find it hostile ground, and certainly not the sort of homage any Divine I believe in would deem virtuous.

Indeed. Most people use secular morals in this day and age anyway, unless they happen to be simultaneously extremist, fundamentalist, violent, and literalist. Somebody who went around killing homosexuals, accusing people of witchcraft, and enslaving unbelievers would not be allowed in society for very long. Religion had its lessons long ago, but those lessons have not aged well in the least, and society suffers due to those who still cling to such a barbaric and ancient code of ethics rather than following reason and standing on the side of compassion for their fellow man.

I see well that's too bad. I can only tell you what the bible says, I can't make you accept it. Every person at the very least has the right to accept or deny it.

You have provided a false dichotomy. I have seen Muslims and other monotheistic religions give the same choice. What about if a Muslim told you, "I see well that's too bad. I can only tell you what the Quran says, I can't make you accept it. Every person at the very least has the right to accept or deny it." Also, what about the myriad of other religions that punish disbelief, including extinct, current, and future faiths. You are failing to see the big picture.

 

[Avocado]

I mean to say that the assertion that God’s nature was changed, good or bad, in the Bible is not supported by the canon of the bible. The New Testament which is the primary foundation for Christian doctrine was cannoned in Carthage 397 AD well before the 17th century. The gospels themselves which deal with the fulfillment of the law are dated even before that so 17th Century frame of mind would have no influence over them.

The reason why I can’t come to the conclusion that “most people arrive at” is because most people are ill-informed. If you want to challenge my assertions that’s a conversation we can have but if you’re going to make a baseless claim about what the bible says on a surface level then I have no reason to take your assertions seriously. Most of my context claims just required a little bit of reading form the actual bible and not snap shop pieces of the text that non-believers post on the internet.

Also, when is it ever good to "smash a baby against the rocks"?

 

[iNtrovert]

You have provided a false dichotomy. I have seen Muslims and other monotheistic religions give the same choice. What about if a Muslim told you, "I see well that's too bad. I can only tell you what the Quran says, I can't make you accept it. Every person at the very least has the right to accept or deny it." Also, what about the myriad of other religions that punish disbelief, including extinct, current, and future faiths. You are failing to see the big picture.

I wasn't taking about all religions just the one we were discussing. For there to be a false dichotomy there needs to be a third option related to the acceptance or denile of the Bible since that is what I was dealing with specifically. The Quran doesn't apply to a discussion about the Christian Bible nor does the punishment related to other religions.

 

[Nicodemus]

You can be right for the wrong reasons but then you're just guessing and therefore have no real right to question what other people believe in.

If you are right for the wrong reasons, you usually think you are right for the right reasons and so not guessing. I think one's 'real right to question what other people believe in', if existent at all, is irrevocable.

The authority of the bible come from the historical verification of Jesus himself, the eye witness accounts of his miracles, teachings, death, burial, and resurrection are historically verifiable and widely accepted by historians and historical scholars Christians and non-Christians worldwide. In these historical verifiable accounts Jesus affirms the authority of the cannon of the Old Testament making clear references in many of the scriptures in the gospels about them. In addition the bible has made prophecies in the Old Testament abbot Jesus that were fulfilled in the New Testament. The Dead Sea scrolls verified the time gap between the new and Old Testament yet they accurately predict the place of birth of Jesus, how he would die and his rejection. There is also evidence outside the bible for the rapid pace at which Christianity spread after the death of Jesus,as well as Christian rituals and Jesus’s existence

"Reporting on Emperor Nero's decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:

Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. . . .5"

"Tacitus reports Christians derived their name from a historical person called Christus (from the Latin), or Christ. He is said to have "suffered the extreme penalty," obviously alluding to the Roman method of execution known as crucifixion. This is said to have occurred during the reign of Tiberius and by the sentence of Pontius Pilatus. This confirms much of what the Gospels tell us about the death of Jesus."

There are more references like the letters of Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan, and the writings of Josephus, a first century Jewish historian ect.

That a person named Jesus may have lived is generally considered likely, yes. But his miracles and resurrection are neither 'historically verifiable' nor 'widely accepted by historians', and, of course, there are no extrabiblical sources for their occurrence. Naturally, the gospels are worthless as historical sources, even if they were written by eye-witnesses.

There is also the fact that not a single apostle recanted belief even in the face of extreme torture and dies horrible deaths for their faith. This points to the fact that they must have seen something miraculous occur. The skeptic argument that they all just thought it happen or hallucinated has been vastly rejected. Jesus was said to appear to large groups of people it is essentially medically impossible and highly improbable that this many people hallucinated the same thing for with many of them had no prior hope to manifest a hallucination of Jesus Christ.

Have you heard of the Yeti or seen a UFO? People lie, people imagine, people misremember, people tell stories.

How do we read the bible? We read it like any other book contextually according to the Genre in which it was written considering the purpose,cultural context,and the langue. I’m just going to quote myself here because I’ve pretty much answered this already

[...] The bible is the documentation about the fall of man, man’s separation from God through sin and the way in which God reconciled himself to man first through the Jews then to the Gentiles.

Troy has been found, you know. Its existence is a lot less shaky than Christ's. Now, do you believe all the things claimed in the Iliad? I wonder how Zeus feels about Yahweh.

Nope, It's all perspective. I could say non-believers look worse because they profess to have a moral code superior to that or the religious derived from their own sense of right and wrong. Yet, when they wish death on people in public forums its proof that their moral compass is corrupt which is a tenant of the Christn religion and they look quite foolish.

Pretensions to a superior moral code are not a necessary element of atheism.

True but I said he doesn't seem to agree meaning that his responses to me seem to suggest that he feels Christians are worse when they exhibit less than ideal behavior for religious reasons. Actually that is exactly what he said and I purposely mentioned him in that last post so he could be a part of the conversation. I'm not putting words in his mouth nor was that my intention. I'm simply going off of what he said himself.

What I said is that displaying hypocritical intolerance and hate make one look more wrongheaded than intolerance and hate untainted by hypocrisy.

 

[iNtrovert]

Also, when is it ever good to "smash a baby against the rocks"?

When was a baby ever smashed against the rocks? It was said in the same sprit that almost any person who just had their entire civilization destroyed to it's foundation would wish death upon their captors. I’m more than sure the survivors had their children ripped from their arms and killed but not only is it never condoned in the bible by that verse It also never happened.

 

[Avocado]

I wasn't taking about all religions just the one we were discussing. For there to be a false dichotomy there needs to be a third option related to the acceptance or denile of the Bible since that is what I was dealing with specifically. The Quran doesn't apply to a discussion about the Christian Bible nor does the punishment related to other religions.

Even if we only focus on your chosen belief system, there are more than two options. For starters, one may never hear of the Bible, and thus be able to accept or reject it. Then, there are those who hear of the Bible, yet suspend judgment due to a lack of information. Then there are different degrees of acceptance, one person may accept the book as literal, while another may accept it as metaphorical, and there are literally thousands of variants of acceptance between the two. There are also disagreements between protestants and Catholics as to what constitutes a full bible. Some denominations are lenient and open-minded enough to say they do not know if their level of acceptance is correct, and then there are some denominations which only accept similar denomination, and there are also denominations which explicitly state that only their denomination is correct. The list goes on and on.

Bringing in other faith systems like the Quran highlights that it would even be premature to assume that the Bible is the book you should look at for God, if there is in fact one God. There could be many gods or none at all.

Even if the ancient Hebrews were expressing a knowledge of a higher being, much of the mythology chronicled in their book is contradictory and full of atrocities. Either the being they are describing is nonexistent, or grossly misrepresented.

 

[Avocado]

When was a baby ever smashed against the rocks? It was said in the same sprit that almost any person who just had their entire civilization destroyed to it's foundation would wish death upon their captors. I’m more than sure the survivors had their children ripped from their arms and killed but not only is it never condoned in the bible by that verse It also never happened.

The context here is that Jerusalem is preparing to take revenge upon Babylon for the capture of Jerusalem. What is appalling here is the assumption that the children of the captors are somehow guilty and deserve death, when only a few people are guilty, namely the leadership of the Babylonians. It would have been far more merciful to instruct the Jews to take children under 12 under their wing and to raise them as their own. This brings up an interesting point, however. If God was protecting Jerusalem, and has the power to will anything into existence, why didn't her protect Jerusalem with a force-field radius which allowed no invaders to enter?

1Beside the rivers of Babylon, we sat and wept

as we thought of Jerusalem.a

2We put away our harps,

hanging them on the branches of poplar trees.

3For our captors demanded a song from us.

Our tormentors insisted on a joyful hymn:

“Sing us one of those songs of Jerusalem!”

4But how can we sing the songs of the Lord

while in a pagan land?

5If I forget you, O Jerusalem,

let my right hand forget how to play the harp.

6May my tongue stick to the roof of my mouth

if I fail to remember you,

if I don’t make Jerusalem my greatest joy.

7O Lord, remember what the Edomites did

on the day the armies of Babylon captured Jerusalem.

“Destroy it!” they yelled.

“Level it to the ground!”

8O Babylon, you will be destroyed.

Happy is the one who pays you back

for what you have done to us.

9Happy is the one who takes your babies

and smashes them against the rocks!

And in another example of child-killing:

War with Midian

1The LORD spoke to Moses, 2“Execute vengeance for the Israelites against the Midianites. After that, you will be gathered to your people.”a

3So Moses spoke to the people, “Equip some of your men for war. They will go against Midian to inflict the LORD’s vengeanceb on them. 4Send 1,000 men to war from each Israelite tribe.” 5So 1,000 were recruited from each Israelite tribe out of the thousandsc in Israel — 12,000 equipped for war. 6Moses sent 1,000 from each tribe to war. They went with Phinehas son of Eleazar the priest, in whose care were the holy objects and signal trumpets.

7They waged war against Midian, as the LORD had commanded Moses, and killed every male.d 8Along with the others slain by them, they killed the Midianite kings — Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba, the five kings of Midian.e They also killed Balaam son of Beorf with the sword. 9The Israelites took the Midianite women and their children captive, and they plundered all their cattle, flocks, and property.g 10Then they burned all the cities where the Midianites lived, as well as all their encampments, 11and took away all the spoils of war and the captives, both man and beast. 12They brought the prisoners, animals, and spoils of war to Moses, Eleazar the priest, and the Israelite community at the camp on the plains of Moab by the Jordan across from Jericho.

13Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14But Moses became furious with the officers, the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds, who were returning from the military campaign. 15“Haveh you let every female live? ” he asked them. 16“Yet they are the ones who, at Balaam’s advice, incited the Israelites to unfaithfulness against the LORD in the Peor incident, so that the plague came against the LORD’s community.i 17So now, kill all the male children and kill every woman who has had sexual relations with a man,j 18but keep alive for yourselves all the young females who have not had sexual relations.k

19“You are to remain outside the camp for seven days. All of you and your prisoners who have killed a person or touched the dead are to purify yourselves on the third day and the seventh day.l 20Also purify everything: garments, leather goods, things made of goat hair, and every article of wood.”m

21Then Eleazar the priest said to the soldiers who had gone to battle, “This is the legal statute the LORD commanded Moses: 22Only the gold, silver, bronze, iron, tin, and lead — 23everything that can withstand fire — you are to pass through fire, and it will be •clean. It must still be purified with the purification water.n Anything that cannot withstand fire, pass through the water. 24On the seventh day wash your clothes, and you will be clean.o After that you may enter the camp.”

25The LORD told Moses, 26“You, Eleazar the priest, and the family leaders of the community are to take a count of what was captured, man and beast. 27Then divide the captives between the troops who went out to war and the entire community.p 28Set aside a tribute for the LORD from what belongs to the fighting men who went out to war: one out of every 500 humans, cattle, donkeys, sheep, and goats. 29Take the tribute from their half and give it to Eleazar the priest as a contribution to the LORD. 30From the Israelites’ half, take one out of every 50 from the people, cattle, donkeys, sheep, and goats, all the livestock, and give them to the Levites who perform the duties ofq the LORD’s tabernacle.”

31So Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the LORD commanded Moses. 32The captives remaining from the plunder the army had taken totaled:

675,000 sheep and goats,

33 72,000 cattle,

34 61,000 donkeys,

35and 32,000 people, all the females who had not had sexual relations with a man.

36The half portion for those who went out to war numbered:

337,500 sheep and goats,

37and the tribute to the LORD was 675

from the sheep and goats;

38from the 36,000 cattle,

the tribute to the LORD was 72;

39from the 30,500 donkeys,

the tribute to the LORD was 61;

40and from the 16,000 people,

the tribute to the LORD was 32 people.

41Moses gave the tribute to Eleazar the priest as a contribution for the LORD, as the LORD had commanded Moses.

42From the Israelites’ half, which Moses separated from the men who fought, 43the community’s half was:

337,500 sheep and goats,

44 36,000 cattle,

45 30,500 donkeys,

46and 16,000 people.

47Moses took one out of every 50, selected from the people and the livestock of the Israelites’ half. He gave them to the Levites who perform the duties of the LORD’s tabernacle, as the LORD had commanded him.

48The officers who were over the thousands of the army, the commanders of thousands and of hundreds, approached Moses 49and told him, “Your servants have taken a census of the fighting men under our command, and not one of us is missing. 50So we have presented to the LORD an offering of the gold articles each man found — armlets, bracelets, rings, earrings, and necklaces — to make •atonement for ourselves before the LORD.”r

51Moses and Eleazar the priest received from them all the articles made out of gold. 52All the gold of the contribution they offered to the LORD, from the commanders of thousands and of hundreds, was 420 pounds.s 53Each of the soldiers had taken plunder for himself.t 54Moses and Eleazar the priest received the gold from the commanders of thousands and of hundreds and brought it into the tent of meeting as a memorial for the Israelites before the LORD.

[MENTION=17164]iNtrovert[/MENTION]

 

[Totenkindly]

When was a baby ever smashed against the rocks? It was said in the same sprit that almost any person who just had their entire civilization destroyed to it's foundation would wish death upon their captors. I’m more than sure the survivors had their children ripped from their arms and killed but not only is it never condoned in the bible by that verse It also never happened.

Can you explain a little better about what you mean when you say, "it also never happened?" since you also admit you are sure this did happen? (I think it was pretty common practice to kill the males and perhaps the children, while taking the women as your own to produce indigenous women, etc.) It was a pretty violent, stark world in that sense. I'm having trouble understanding your meaning.

As a prime example of violence, David said many wonderful things about his enemies and actually carried them out; he was an interesting figure, pretty ruthless in battle and fighting enemies but unable to appropriate father his own family. He was also referred to as a "man after God's own heart" (which is repeated endlessly in church sermons today), so understandably people tend to view his words and behavior as having God's approval aside from his obvious blunders like his affair with Bathsheba and accompanying murder of her husband. Violence seems inherent to the accounts in the Old Testament, and some of that violence was supposedly ordered by God.

 

[Qre:us]

Suicide killer, the OG: Samson (Judges 16:28-30)

 

[Totenkindly]

Suicide killer, the OG: Samson (Judges 16:28-30)

Well, that was presented as a disfigured Samson striking one final blow against the godless pagans who had put out his eyes and captured him, so here he was killing the rulers and any civilians within it as they justly deserved for partying in front of their pagan deity and mocking him and God -- in fact, according to the passage, "more men than he had killed in his lifetime."

Which was a lot of people. In one event alone, Samson had supposedly killed 1000 philistines with a bone(Judges 15:15):

And he found a new jawbone of an ass, and put forth his hand, and took it, and slew a thousand men therewith..

 

[Nicodemus]

Can you explain a little better about what you mean when you say, "it also never happened?" since you also admit you are sure this did happen? (I think it was pretty common practice to kill the males and perhaps the children, while taking the women as your own to produce indigenous women, etc.) It was a pretty violent, stark world in that sense. I'm having trouble understanding your meaning.

As a prime example of violence, David said many wonderful things about his enemies and actually carried them out; he was an interesting figure, pretty ruthless in battle and fighting enemies but unable to appropriate father his own family. He was also referred to as a "man after God's own heart" (which is repeated endlessly in church sermons today), so understandably people tend to view his words and behavior as having God's approval aside from his obvious blunders like his affair with Bathsheba and accompanying murder of her husband. Violence seems inherent to the accounts in the Old Testament, and some of that violence was supposedly ordered by God.

To people interested in David, I recommend Stefan Heym's The King David Report. It makes sense (and a mockery) of all the inconsitencies which can be found about him the Bible.

 

[GarrotTheThief]

The way I see it is that every religion/spirituality/creed has parts which are divinely inspired just as any work and parts which are corrupt. This to me is empirical evidence of a higher one above us or a loving creator which is really a leap of faith.

Yet still considering the fact our ontology is contingent on spiritualism and you may see it otherwise, or not - after all if it were not for religious convictions of certain said people we would not have or be here today the way that we are - Isaac, Galileo, Einstein, Tesla, Joan of Arc, Cleopatra - all of them spiritualists at heart, as shamanistic as a bushman yet men/women of science too.

It is as if 10,000 fingers point to a throne upon which the maker dwells, even science, and we argue about the fingers, we see the fingers for the moon, as Bruce Lee would say.

It is as if there is a divine source which is the purest light and we see only different wavelengths as that light moves through a prism and argue about them instead of seeing it all in its glorious totality.

 

[Qre:us]

Well, that was presented as a disfigured Samson striking one final blow against the godless pagans who had put out his eyes and captured him, so here he was killing the rulers and any civilians within it as they justly deserved for partying in front of their pagan deity and mocking him and God -- in fact, according to the passage, "more men than he had killed in his lifetime."

I'd wager my sanity that, that is the motivation for all suicide killers, feeling oppressed and scarred by the oppressors, until they decide to take matters into their own hands, and sacrifice their own life, for the life of the "enemies", because the enemies justly deserved it, for mocking them and their god/doctrine/what have you..........

It ain't just them cray cray Jihadists. Sanctioned in the Bible.

It is as if there is a divine source which is the purest light and we see only different wavelengths as that light moves through a prism and argue about them instead of seeing it all in its glorious totality.

God likes to play hide and seek.

 

[Totenkindly]

To people interested in David, I recommend Stefan Heym's The King David Report. It makes sense (and a mockery) of all the inconsitencies which can be found about him the Bible.

Well, I don't care much about mockeries, as a matter of course.

I just want the criticism/reasoning to be sensible.

I'd wager my sanity that, that is the motivation for all suicide killers, feeling oppressed and scarred by the oppressors, until they decide to take matters into their own hands, and sacrifice their own life, for the life of the "enemies", because the enemies justly deserved it, for mocking them and their god/doctrine/what have you..........

It ain't just them cray cray Jihadists. Sanctioned in the Bible.

Again, I'm not much into mockeries.

But I think the core of what you've said here is important -- we need to really step back from the stories and detach from our familiarity, so we can see them from various perspectives. Samson is viewed as this hero, but realistically you CAN view it from the Philistine viewpoint... here's this guy who was a leader of the enemy but also very much a hedonist himself, who killed many of their men, burned down their fields, etc., humiliated them... and finally fell into their hands through a really stupid ruse (where Delilah kept tying him up, and finally cut his hair).

Putting out his eyes and making a public spectacle of him, to show their superiority and attain some kind of satisfaction after all the damage he wrought them, isn't really atypical for the times... and even today when the US killed Osama Bin Laden (for example), there was a lot of complaints about how he wasn't really made to pay for what he had done to us. Time changes, but times don't change.

I'm big on stepping around and viewing things from many angles, to get outside our own heads.

So yeah, you can view Samson as "Jihad'ing" out here, although he was already pretty much ruined by having lost his power and his sight and his freedom unlike most jihadists who are still healthy and would have various options besides suicide bombing.

 

[Nicodemus]

Well, I don't care much about mockeries, as a matter of course.

I just want the criticism/reasoning to be sensible.

It is. Hence sense (and mockery).