challenge: try to describe a society more evil...

[SNOWBALL]

than the one advocated in the old testament. You're supposed to kill (http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_stone_your_whole_family/dt13_06-08.html) your children and your wife, etc. if they suggest worshiping another god. You're supposed to investigate whether other towns are worshipping other gods. If they are, you have to kill (http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/religious_tolerance/dt13_13-15.html) everyone in the town. If a woman who is not engaged to be married is raped, then she has to marry the man who rapes her (http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/rape/dt22_28a.html) .

When you go to war, and win, you are supposed to kill all the male prisoners and use the women for sex (http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/prisoners_of_war/dt21_10a.html)

The more I learn about the Bible, the more shocked I am that people take any of this as the word of a loving creator. It seems more like the notes of a madman.

[MegaloMialo]

Stop making things up please.
Thanks.

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]

Stop making things up please.
Thanks.


[/ QUOTE ]

?????????????????

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]

Stop making things up please.
Thanks.


[/ QUOTE ]

maybe you didn't notice that once you click the link, you have to click the forward arrows to get to the next part of the story?

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
than the one advocated in the old testament. You're supposed to kill your children and your wife, etc. if they suggest worshiping another god. You're supposed to investigate whether other towns are worshipping other gods. If they are, you have to kill everyone in the town. If a woman who is not engaged to be married is raped, then she has to marry the man who rapes her .

When you go to war, and win, you are supposed to kill all the male prisoners and use the women for sex

The more I learn about the Bible, the more shocked I am that people take any of this as the word of a loving creator. It seems more like the notes of a madman.



[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, this Brick Testament is great. I looked up the link in my King James bible, about the girl who has to marry her rapist ( Deuteronomy 2-29 ) and sure enough, she has to marry her rapist because, “ he hath humbled her”. But Snowball, you should be informed - preachers don’t use Deuteronomy when preaching to their congregation.

[MegaloMialo]

Sorry just wanted to see how you would react if i wrote exactly that. Won't do it again.

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]


Hey, this Brick Testament is great. I looked up the link in my King James bible, about the girl who has to marry her rapist ( Deuteronomy 2-29 ) and sure enough, she has to marry her rapist because, “ he hath humbled her”. But Snowball, you should be informed - preachers don’t use Deuteronomy when preaching to their congregation.



[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah I know. I've been to church. God though. How [censored] cool would it be to preach a guest sermon about this stuff. I am tooooootally down to do this if anyone can set me up with fake credentials at a church anywhere near LA. We need someone to film it though. It'd be like Borat yo.

[Matt R.]

The first sign that you don't know what the [censored] you're talking about should be that you give links to a site with lego people.

Ask yourself this question: If I wrote a book about a society that did horrible things by today's standards, does that make me evil?

A more precise analogy to what most Jews and Christians believe regarding the OT: If I designed a universe, and inspired someone to write a book about the historical or semi-historical actions of the Israelites (as well as the code of law that Moses dictated) does that make me an evil person?

I guess I better never write a history book, or people might think I'm too evil because it doesn't talk about lollipops and chocolate covered strawberries.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
The first sign that you don't know what the [censored] you're talking about should be that you give links to a site with lego people.

Ask yourself this question: If I wrote a book about a society that did horrible things by today's standards, does that make me evil?

A more precise analogy to what most Jews and Christians believe regarding the OT: If I designed a universe, and inspired someone to write a book about the historical or semi-historical actions of the Israelites (as well as the code of law that Moses dictated) does that make me an evil person?

I guess I better never write a history book, or people might think I'm too evil because it doesn't talk about lollipops and chocolate covered strawberries.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it would only make you evil if you claimed that those actions were inspired by God and represent Good. After all, morality is absolute and immutable, right?

[Matt R.]

The actions of the Israelites were inspired by God? I think I've discussed this before. I've read those passages, I didn't see anywhere where it says the war atrocities (by today's standards) were inspired by God.

What a good number of Christians/Jews DO believe is that the Bible was inspired by God. In other words, God inspired the stories to be written (perhaps he allowed the author to see "truth" in the events, so they were reported properly or whatever). I've never seen a passage in the Bible which says that God gave that code of law to the Israelites. In other words, God did not inspire those actions, it is a historical account of what Moses and the Israelites did in a time of war. Perhaps some of it was justifiable? I don't think the Israelites had, for instance, camps for prisoners of war.

I just don't understand how a book about actions Israel committed implies that God is a madman, even if God inspired the authorship of the book.

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
After all, morality is absolute and immutable, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends /images/graemlins/wink.gif. So no, I guess. It depends on what you mean... I've never gotten involved in the absolute vs. relative morality debates so I'm not sure.

I would like to point out that if you think morality is relative, then you have no basis to judge the actions of Moses and the Israelites. They certainly believed their actions were correct. You clearly do not have the proper perspective to judge them. And if you think morality is relative (I think you do), then that means it is possible the actions described in Deuteronomy were in fact perfectly moral, right?

[andyfox]

The society that produced Yahweh was one that lived in a tough, unforgiving environment, where nature was harsh, and life was difficult. It stands to reason that the god thereby created would be tough, unforgiving, harsh, difficult and not of the earth.

Contrast that with the gods that Native Americans created in their more beneficent environments.

[andyfox]

It is the actions of God himself that are those of a cruel entity. Turning Lot's wife into a pillar of salt because she looked at something; causing women to suffer in childbirth forever because Eve ate something; destroying the living creatures of the world because they were not living up to His standards--those kinds of things.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
The first sign that you don't know what the [censored] you're talking about should be that you give links to a site with lego people.

Ask yourself this question: If I wrote a book about a society that did horrible things by today's standards, does that make me evil?

A more precise analogy to what most Jews and Christians believe regarding the OT: If I designed a universe, and inspired someone to write a book about the historical or semi-historical actions of the Israelites (as well as the code of law that Moses dictated) does that make me an evil person?

I guess I better never write a history book, or people might think I'm too evil because it doesn't talk about lollipops and chocolate covered strawberries.

[/ QUOTE ]
Have you even read the bible? God MANDATES many of these actions. I chuckle at people who claim that God inspired the choosing of the books of the New Testament, but somehow let himself get quoted as mandating rape and genocide in his holy book. You can't have it both ways.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I've discussed this before. I've read those passages, I didn't see anywhere where it says the war atrocities (by today's standards) were inspired by God.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure in the bible god tells his people to make war on a city and spare no one, not even women and children. I mean specifically.

[Matt R.]

I chuckle at YOU, Phil153, since I am about to completely obliterate your silly little argument. I (/capslocktomakeitseemtrue) MANDATE (/endcapslocktomakeitseemtrue) that you run away and hide in shame, never to return to this thread.

You see, no one who thinks the Bible is inspired by God also thinks that God Himself mandates rape and genocide. You are assuming that they do, which is unfortunately false. Just because lego people proclaim that they do does not make it true. For instance, the book of Deuteronomy states how Moses set forth a code of law for the Israelites, which is what this thread was about. Unfortunately for you Phil153, just because Moses mandated some questionable laws more than 2000 years ago in a completely different culture (btw, it is possible those laws were an improvement on the current societal situation), does not mean that God thinks rape and genocide are totally awesome and advocated by the lego people.

Your logical error is that you somehow think that because the Bible contains instances of rape and genocide, that it is mandated by God. Please, do not back up this claim with evidence or anything. I will take your word on it over centuries of work by religious scholars, theologians, and religious philosophers. I will, I promise. After all, it's not possible that people who devote their lives to this stuff have a better understanding of it than Phil153. Clearly, millions of people base all or part of their belief system on a book that advocates genocide.

By Phil153's logic, if I am inspired to write a story by someone who was, say, a holocaust survivor, and I write about terrible things in my story, then that person clearly mandates torture and genocide and is an evil Jew.

This can easily be shown by writing MANDATES in capital letters, with no further evidence.



Chuckle.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
The actions of the Israelites were inspired by God? I think I've discussed this before. I've read those passages, I didn't see anywhere where it says the war atrocities (by today's standards) were inspired by God.

What a good number of Christians/Jews DO believe is that the Bible was inspired by God. In other words, God inspired the stories to be written (perhaps he allowed the author to see "truth" in the events, so they were reported properly or whatever). I've never seen a passage in the Bible which says that God gave that code of law to the Israelites. In other words, God did not inspire those actions, it is a historical account of what Moses and the Israelites did in a time of war. Perhaps some of it was justifiable? I don't think the Israelites had, for instance, camps for prisoners of war.

I just don't understand how a book about actions Israel committed implies that God is a madman, even if God inspired the authorship of the book.


[/ QUOTE ]

Deuteronomy focuses on the laws of Moses. These are not man made laws, according to the bible. After Moses explains that you should kill everyone inside a city; man, women, children, and animals, if some inhabitants of that city believe in another God, he then explains that this mandate is coming from God himself (Deuteronomy 13-18).

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
Your logical error is that you somehow think that because the Bible contains instances of rape and genocide, that it is mandated by God. Please, do not back up this claim with evidence or anything. I will take your word on it over centuries of work by religious scholars, theologians, and religious philosophers. I will, I promise. After all, it

[/ QUOTE ]

well in general god is against rape and i suppose genocide cause of murder, but most explicitly there are instances in the OT where god ordered his people to commit specific acts of genocide, not sure of rape but wouldn't doubt it.

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure in the bible god tells his people to make war on a city and spare no one, not even women and children. I mean specifically.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't recall this. If you're referring to the story in Deuteronomy, then I'm pretty sure that it is God who advocates that the Israelites go to war (they were under extreme oppression), but it is Moses who directs the war and gives directives to kill the children.

Is this bad? Sure, I wouldn't do it. Was it standard in those days for people going to war? Probably. Does this make it okay? Not necessarily. But do you think the first thing on the Israelites mind in a time of war 2000+ years ago would be how should we care for the poor children of the people who have been forcing us to live in caves for the past 6 years? What do you think would happen to the women and children after all their land was destroyed and the men killed, even if the Israelites did not directly kill them?

Of course, this is all a moot point if it was actually a character from the Bible, not God, which advocated this behavior. I don't recall God ever advocating genocide in the stories of the Bible.

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]
I've never seen a passage in the Bible which says that God gave that code of law to the Israelites. In other words, God did not inspire those actions, it is a historical account of what Moses and the Israelites did in a time of war.

[/ QUOTE ]

Moses is the mouthpiece for god. Also, some of these are direct god quotes, like the one about murdering all the men and sexually enslaving all the women. That's a direct command from god.

If you want to say that moses is not the mouthpiece for God, that's fine, but then you have to give up the ten commandments also.

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]

The society that produced Yahweh was one that lived in a tough, unforgiving environment, where nature was harsh, and life was difficult. It stands to reason that the god thereby created would be tough, unforgiving, harsh, difficult and not of the earth.

Contrast that with the gods that Native Americans created in their more beneficent environments.


[/ QUOTE ]

100% agreed. Your analysis is basically marxist FYI /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[latefordinner]

hey all, you are all missing the thing the makes the xian God the most evil and it has nothing to do with Deuteronomy - it's this:

I'll give you a tiny tiny lifetime to listen to all these different stories. However, if you happen for whatever reason not come to the correct conclusion about these stories and accept the right one as true, you will suffer unbearable agony for all eternity.

That's like my telling my dog, look you have one minute to learn to roll over. If you don't learn it I'm going to chain you up in the backyard for the rest of your life. But it's cause I love you, don't worry.

[andyfox]

"I don't recall God ever advocating genocide in the stories of the Bible."

Why did Noah have to build an ark? What did Lot's wife see? What was the 10th plague in Egypt?

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Your logical error is that you somehow think that because the Bible contains instances of rape and genocide, that it is mandated by God. Please, do not back up this claim with evidence or anything.

[/ QUOTE ]
You have clearly never read the first four chapters of the bible. I wrote MANDATE in capitals to point out to you that God did indeed sanction these things. It's there is black and white. You are an idiot for aggressively debating something you haven't even read. As anyone knowledgeable about the bible, theist or not, can clearly see.

As for the evidence which you "mandate" I will not show...here's a list of quotations just for rape; there are plenty for genocide.

http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm

Don't be put off by the name, the chapter and verse are all there for you to look for yourself. These things are proclaimed as being said by God.

You can also look at the skeptics annotated bible. Browse through the first five chapters. For example:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/lev/1.html (burnt offerings)

See leviticus 20 where God states that adulterers must be stoned to death:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/lev/20.html

Why do you think the Muslims do it? They follow the same bible as you do.

God MANDATES (yes, madates) the destruction of cities that do not believe in Jehovah. Where do you think the Muslims get their ideas from?
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/dt/13.html

I could fill 100 pages with this stuff. The bible CLEARLY states that God spoke unto Moses saying these things. i.e. Leviticus 20:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

Here is my original point:

[ QUOTE ]
God MANDATES many of these actions. I chuckle at people who claim that God inspired the choosing of the books of the New Testament, but somehow let himself get quoted as mandating rape and genocide in his holy book. You can't have it both ways.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is 100% supported by the above quotes and you've made a fool of yourself with your response.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
The actions of the Israelites were inspired by God? I think I've discussed this before. I've read those passages, I didn't see anywhere where it says the war atrocities (by today's standards) were inspired by God.

What a good number of Christians/Jews DO believe is that the Bible was inspired by God. In other words, God inspired the stories to be written (perhaps he allowed the author to see "truth" in the events, so they were reported properly or whatever). I've never seen a passage in the Bible which says that God gave that code of law to the Israelites. In other words, God did not inspire those actions, it is a historical account of what Moses and the Israelites did in a time of war. Perhaps some of it was justifiable? I don't think the Israelites had, for instance, camps for prisoners of war.

I just don't understand how a book about actions Israel committed implies that God is a madman, even if God inspired the authorship of the book.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, God explicitly ordered the execution of many innocent people. He also condoned the execution of others.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your logical error is that you somehow think that because the Bible contains instances of rape and genocide, that it is mandated by God. Please, do not back up this claim with evidence or anything.

[/ QUOTE ]
You have clearly never read the first four chapters of the bible. I wrote MANDATE in capitals to point out to you that God did indeed sanction these things. It's there is black and white. You are an idiot for aggressively debating something you haven't even read. As anyone knowledgeable about the bible, theist or not, can clearly see.

As for the evidence which you "mandate" I will not show...here's a list of quotations just for rape; there are plenty for genocide.

http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm

Don't be put off by the name, the chapter and verse are all there for you to look for yourself. These things are proclaimed as being said by God.

You can also look at the skeptics annotated bible. Browse through the first five chapters. For example:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/lev/1.html (burnt offerings)

See leviticus 20 where God states that adulterers must be stoned to death:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/lev/20.html

Why do you think the Muslims do it? They follow the same bible as you do.

God MANDATES (yes, madates) the destruction of cities that do not believe in Jehovah. Where do you think the Muslims get their ideas from?
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/dt/13.html

I could fill 100 pages with this stuff. The bible CLEARLY states that God spoke unto Moses saying these things. i.e. Leviticus 20:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

Here is my original point:

[ QUOTE ]
God MANDATES many of these actions. I chuckle at people who claim that God inspired the choosing of the books of the New Testament, but somehow let himself get quoted as mandating rape and genocide in his holy book. You can't have it both ways.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is 100% supported by the above quotes and you've made a fool of yourself with your response.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. And if the Bible was written as a history book, and was purporting to be giving an objective synopsis of the history of a violent, tough people, that would be fine. But thats not what its doing at all. The Bible is claiming that this is the Ultimate Standard of Good, and that this is how God expects you to live your life. THAT is why its evil. At least, I presume thats why Snowball thinks its evil. I don't use the word evil, in general, at least not seriously.

[alphatmw]

wait so god, in his infinite power, divinely inspired people to include parts in his holy book that he did not agree with?

[ill rich]

i agree it is evil.

but these types of things still go on today.

[Matt R.]

Phil153,
No no, you don't get it.

I'm not interested in random Bible quotes. I am actually interested in content and understanding the underlying context of the Biblical events. I did read some snippets from a couple of your links. I found it quite humorous that the links are pretty much doing exactly what I said was logically incoherent earlier. Essentially, what they are doing is, "See? Here's a quote where someone did something bad. And since it's in the Bible clearly it is the Word of God, so God must be saying that doing these bad things are okay." No, Phil153. If I write a story about someone getting raped, it is my word. This does not mean that every single person writing a story about rape mandates rape.

I actually now understand why NotReady (I think it's NotReady), refuses to respond to random links to Bible bashing sites, when the person linking them fails to provide any argumentation. Let's see if I can respond by posting links to 100 Christian sites, and if you don't respond to each individual link then you must not have actually read the Bible!

It is possible that in the Bible, God advocates some "non-standard" methods of punishment by today's standards. This much I admit. I wish I could go into more detail, but unfortunately I don't memorize Bible verses with the intention of going on the interwebz to show how stupid another group of people is relative to my superior self. As a side note, you clearly do not have any interest in learning anything from the Bible. Why do you spend your time reading it to simply bash another group's belief system? Wouldn't your time be better spent learning stuff you were interested in? I don't read the Book of Mormon with the intention of showing those ignorant Mormons how silly their beliefs are. I think it's because I'm not a douchebag, and I actually have better things to do than making failed attempts to belittle others' beliefs.

Oh yeah, back to the "God may mandate non-standard punishments". I will go back to another point of mine that completely obliterates this thread, and surprisingly no one has responded to (orly?). So, morality is relative right? Since morality is relative, how do you "know" that advocating non-standard methods of punishment (relative to today's standards) is absolutely, morally wrong and that God is a monster for mandating the law? How can this contradiction not be obvious to you? You clearly do not have the perspective to judge the laws of a culture 2000+ years ago. Some "monstrous" laws could very well have been an improvement over previous laws, or have been necessary. You silly atheists and your moral absolutism. Don't you know the full story is important for making these decisions, and we may not know the whole societal context for these people living in a vastly different culture?

You have an intriguing personality mixture of arrogance and stupidity, Phil153. I would advise you to work on the latter as it makes you look silly, but it gives you a sort of endearing quality that I can't quite put my finger on. Maybe it's just because you make me laugh.

[SNOWBALL]

Matt R.,

How can you possibly go on insisting that god doesn't mandate the things mentioned in this thread when the citations state that he does? Are you saying that the bible purposefully misquotes and misrepresents god?

It's pretty clear that you don't care about what's true, and that your religion is very important to you psychologically. If you're so easily offended by people that like to discuss religion without presuming god-friendly conclusions, then you shouldn't be on this forum.

Ummm, and the reason NR doesn't respond to this stuff is that he has no response. If he had a response, you bet your ass we would be hearing it. He's certainly not shy about posting his baseless opinions on Bertrand Russel and Richard Dawkins (who he refuses to read)

[Matt R.]

Hey vhawk,
Here is the part I disagree with: [ QUOTE ]
But thats not what its doing at all. The Bible is claiming that this is the Ultimate Standard of Good, and that this is how God expects you to live your life.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is true at all. The bible is a collection of stories written by a LOT of different people (inspired or not). Put it this way: I definitely do not understand the leap of saying "Person X wrote something, therefore X is their ultimate standard for goodness". Yes, I think SOME parts of the Bible are saying things like "this is how you should live your life." But just because it contains stories about times of war and those involved killed people, does not mean that the Bible is saying we should all become warmongers and kill the enemies' children. It's not an ethics textbook, nor a science textbook, nor a history textbook. Not every passage that the skeptics bible site quotes is an ethical guideline, but it appears they try really hard to make it seem that way.

Also, I like the tone of your posts much better (they're conducive to debate and discussion). Sorry about my previous posts, but I'm just messing with Phil because I think his attitude when posting on an internet message board is funny /images/graemlins/grin.gif. I understand how some may disagree with the Bible's message at times, but I don't think the scholarly journal of the lego people makes very good arguments.

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand how some may disagree with the Bible's message at times, but I don't think the scholarly journal of the lego people makes very good arguments.


[/ QUOTE ]

actually it doesn't make ANY arguments. It's just direct quotations from the bible with some illustration...

Again, how can you possibly say "just because a story is written about person X doing bad things doesn't mean that the bible advocates doing bad things"


Here's another law in the bible "Deuteronomy 22:20
'But if the accusation is true and no evidence of the woman's virginity is shown, the woman must be taken to the door of her fathers house and stoned to death by the men of the town."

IT'S NOT A STORY IT'S A RULE. IT'S NOT A SPECIFIC INSTANCE. IT'S A GENERAL STATEMENT. Here are the rules for accusing your wife of being a whore (http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/proof_of_virginity/dt22_13.html)

[Matt R.]

Snowball,
I was provided several citations. To understand why I didn't read every line of every single one (which is why NotReady does not respond to this type of crap either, no matter what you choose to believe), consider the following:

I respond by posting 8 links to Christian apologetics websites. You decide you don't want to dig through every detail to find out why I or NotReady do not think that the Bible supports genocide. You come back and say, "hey, I'm not reading all that. You didn't even provide an argument". I, or NotReady, says "well, clearly you haven't read the Bible and you are ignorant about all things religion therefore our arguments must be right." You say "wtf". Hilarity ensues.

I read parts of the citations. Not a single thing I read indicates that God directly mandates genocide. I'm not reading them all, sorry. What I DID read was something along the lines of "HEYYYY! Group so and so raped such and such!! God is evil b/c he thinks it's good!!" and some storyline about a lego set raping some guy's daughter. Oddly enough, I've never seen a serious theologian or religious philosopher use lego people in their arguments.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I understand how some may disagree with the Bible's message at times, but I don't think the scholarly journal of the lego people makes very good arguments.


[/ QUOTE ]

actually it doesn't make ANY arguments. It's just direct quotations from the bible with some illustration...

Again, how can you possibly say "just because a story is written about person X doing bad things doesn't mean that the bible advocates doing bad things"


Here's another law in the bible "Deuteronomy 22:20
'But if the accusation is true and no evidence of the woman's virginity is shown, the woman must be taken to the door of her fathers house and stoned to death by the men of the town."

IT'S NOT A STORY IT'S A RULE. IT'S NOT A SPECIFIC INSTANCE. IT'S A GENERAL STATEMENT. Here are the rules for accusing your wife of being a whore (http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/proof_of_virginity/dt22_13.html)

[/ QUOTE ]

[censored] this is funny. I hadn't clicked on the links, but all the talk of 'lego people' finally got to me...what a [censored] riot.

[Matt R.]

Snowball,
I will take a different route to keep the thread interesting. So, you must like the Christian faith but hate the Jewish faith, am I right?

A big point in Jesus coming along was to do away with these old laws that Moses gave. He argued constantly with the Pharisees about this. Essentially, he said it is silly to follow the letter of the law so rigidly without taking into consideration mitigating factors. Then the Pharisees responded that it was blasphemy, etc. Jesus advocated thinking about the situation rather than following the laws you linked to a T.

So, since Jews do not believe Jesus was the son of God they do not believe the laws were ever "updated". Therefore they must follow these old, archaic laws given to them by Moses. Does this mean that the Jewish faith alone is silly? And, since Christians advocate Jesus' way of thinking rather than the old laws dictated by Moses, these arguments must have nothing to do with Christianity, right?

[SNOWBALL]

Matt R.

What WOULD convince you that god endorses acts of terrible murder as a general rule in response to offenses like adultery, apostasy, paganism, homosexuality etc. BESIDES direct bible quotations saying exactly that? You basically just respond every time saying

"Uhhh, I didn't read your sources [ummm, it's the bible. It's not "my source"] and I refuse under any circumstances to be convinced. Also, you atheists are RUDE!"

[Matt R.]

Snowball,
"Your" sources show snippets from the Bible. They do not give the full context. This is not hard to understand.

From your last post, with clever illustrations using legos: "If a man marries a woman and has sex with her... blah blah blah" Do you see how it does not say, "God advocates.... yadda yadda yadda... stoning her to death"? Deuteronomy starts out by saying Moses gave this law to the Israelites. The law that GOD gave to his people was the ten commandments. You have yet to provide a quote directly stating or implying that God advocates genocide or that rape is morally acceptable. You have shown quotes from the Bible indicating that there were laws back in the day dictated by Moses concerning how to deal with those who were raped, and obviously those laws are far different than those we have today. Different cultures, different rules. Since you are a moral absolutist, and these laws are morally repugnant in any day and age, what is the source of your morality? If you say it comes from yourself, then I say the people back then disagreed. See how that works?

I also don't think you atheists are rude (well, okay, you are sometimes). I just think it's funny how some of you spend your time studying a book when you have absolutely no interest in learning anything from it.

[vhawk01]

Incorrect about the 'no interest in learning anything about it.' We are just generally interested in learning different things than you, perhaps.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
since Christians advocate Jesus' way of thinking rather than the old laws dictated by Moses, these arguments must have nothing to do with Christianity, right?


[/ QUOTE ]

The old laws were dictated by God, through Moses. Jesus must have realized he made a mistake and came down to earth to update things.

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
since Christians advocate Jesus' way of thinking rather than the old laws dictated by Moses, these arguments must have nothing to do with Christianity, right?


[/ QUOTE ]

The old laws were dictated by God, through Moses. Jesus must have realized he made a mistake and came down to earth to update things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, at least God's flexible, right? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Deuteronomy starts out by saying Moses gave this law to the Israelites. The law that GOD gave to his people was the ten commandments.

[/ QUOTE ]
AND GOD SPAKE UNTO MOSES, SAYING

Do a bible search for "and god spake" or "and god said". Then follow the line of the quotation until its conclusion. Almost all of these atrocities and absurdities were mandated by God. What you call Moses's laws were actually God speaking. THAT'S THE POINT, DUMMY. Further, the new testament supports God's conversations with Moses in John 9:29 and elsewhere where Jesus supports the old prophets and laws (I can't find the quotation right now...but there are a few).

You are a clown until you address this point or admit that God's words and intent have been incorrectly recorded on multiple occasions in the bible, and that God allowed this to happen. If so, I get the right to chuckle at your (and others) claims that the New Testament is accurate and that God helped pick the correct books. As per my initial post which so offended you. QED.

[Matt R.]

Phil153,
Oh, you can't find the quotation right now. That's too bad.

Hey, do an interwebz seach for "All the stuff in the Bible". It should bring up some good hits. Follow the readings until the conclusion. It will clearly show you that I am right. Sorry, but I can't find the exact quotes right now. Also, I seemed to have lost the actual argument in your empty excuse for a skull, so you'll just have to google it.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Phil153,
Oh, you can't find the quotation right now. That's too bad.

Hey, do an interwebz seach for "All the stuff in the Bible". It should bring up some good hits. Follow the readings until the conclusion. It will clearly show you that I am right. Sorry, but I can't find the exact quotes right now. Also, I seemed to have lost the actual argument in your empty excuse for a skull, so you'll just have to google it.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is proof you have been owned, and know it /images/graemlins/grin.gif

I'm searching for the quotes right now to satisfy your curiosity. How about responding to the rest of my post in the meantime? Or do your Good Christian Values not include honesty?

[Phil153]

Here you go. BTW, you don't have to google it, you clown, you can follow any of the above quotes back to their source (which go on for pages), where it clearly states "And God Said", or "And God Spake". Type the search terms into something like www.biblegateway.com (http://www.biblegateway.com) It's all there. It's a simple, specific search.

As for Jesus' comments, which you claim I conveniently couldn't find:

Matthew 5:

17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

2 Timothy 3:

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Luke 16:

17And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

18Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

There are many more where Jesus echos the laws and punishments of the Old Testament. For example, here he supports the punishment of Moses (from a direct commandment of God) for swearing at your mother or father (death):

Mark 7:

10For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:

11But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.

12And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;

13Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

I think I've proven the point. It's amusing to see your good Christian values of honesty, respect, and trust at work in this thread.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Not a single thing I read indicates that God directly mandates genocide.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not sure if this is what Phil had in mind, but one example is Deuteronomy 20:16-18 (this from the New International Version):

"16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the LORD your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God."

This seems to clearly say that God has commanded genocide. I think Phil's point was that if you want to say that this quote portrays an inaccurrate picture of God's wishes then how can you have confidence that the New testament is accurate?

[Phil153]

Oh, I missed this point (I skipped over your hate filled ramble from earlier):

[ QUOTE ]
So, morality is relative right?

[/ QUOTE ]
Not really. You can derive a hierarchy of ethics from secular principles. In fact, even theists need to do this. They were preaching far more advanced concepts of morality in China hundreds of years because Jesus turned up. Go read some Buddhist texts to understand the foundations of morality in a secular world. Or some of the great Roman/Greek philosophers. Or even use your own head. You'll be a better person for it.

Just because many use God to deal with their fear of life and themselves, doesn't mean that you need God to provide absolute morality.

[andyfox]

"Not a single thing I read indicates that God directly mandates genocide."

He doesn't (just) mandate them, he commits them himself.

[ctj]

[ QUOTE ]
The society that produced Yahweh was one that lived in a tough, unforgiving environment, where nature was harsh, and life was difficult. It stands to reason that the god thereby created would be tough, unforgiving, harsh, difficult and not of the earth.

Contrast that with the gods that Native Americans created in their more beneficent environments.

[/ QUOTE ]

By all accounts, the Valley of Mexico was a beneficent environment, yet the Aztecs placated their gods by offering up the bloody hearts of their numerous (human) sacrificial victims.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
Not a single thing I read indicates that God directly mandates genocide.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exodus 12:12
"On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every firstborn—both men and animals—and I will bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt. I am the LORD."


[ QUOTE ]
The bible is a collection of stories written by a LOT of different people (inspired or not).

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks for clearing that up. Can you provide a list of which are inspired and which aren't? How about god committing genocide on thousands of children? Not inspired, I assume?

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not a single thing I read indicates that God directly mandates genocide.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exodus 12:12
"On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every firstborn—both men and animals—and I will bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt. I am the LORD."


[ QUOTE ]
The bible is a collection of stories written by a LOT of different people (inspired or not).

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks for clearing that up. Can you provide a list of which are inspired and which aren't? How about god committing genocide on thousands of children? Not inspired, I assume?

[/ QUOTE ]

C'mon man...that's ridiculous. You took that out of context, mistranslated it, failed to account for cultural differences, don't understand the righteousness of the lord, and can't understand theology. Plus, that's not even IN the bible...source?

[andyfox]

The Aztecs were originally a nomadic group involved in a process of invasion, conquest and assimilation. During the course of this tough process--they were one of many wandering, hungry hunter tribes, and, in the beginning, they were more persecuted than persecuting, probably driven away from one city-state after another--they went through the transformation from the worship of feminine deities to the worship of aggresive masculine ones. It was under the aegis of the newly-supreme war god, Huitzilopochtli, that the Aztecs made their way into the valley and the shores of Lake Texcoco. But they had already been hardened by that process of invasion, conquest and assimilation before they made their way to that environment. And that environment probably wasn't all that benificent: in 1325 when they settled, it was a swampy bit of land in the lake that the neighboring tribes had considerd unfit for settlement.

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]

The Aztecs were originally a nomadic group involved in a process of invasion, conquest and assimilation. During the course of this tough process--they were one of many wandering, hungry hunter tribes, and, in the beginning, they were more persecuted than persecuting, probably driven away from one city-state after another--they went through the transformation from the worship of feminine deities to the worship of aggresive masculine ones. It was under the aegis of the newly-supreme war god, Huitzilopochtli, that the Aztecs made their way into the valley and the shores of Lake Texcoco. But they had already been hardened by that process of invasion, conquest and assimilation before they made their way to that environment. And that environment probably wasn't all that benificent: in 1325 when they settled, it was a swampy bit of land in the lake that the neighboring tribes had considerd unfit for settlement.



[/ QUOTE ]

Andy,

how in the hell do you know so much stuff?

[kingofmirrors]

This makes no sense, Jesus isn't necessary for the Jewish laws to be updated...

[Duke]

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that these new 'people' who pop up out of nowhere to defend the bible are just gimmick accounts successfully leveling a bunch of us. Well done!

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
than the one advocated in the old testament. You're supposed to kill (http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_stone_your_whole_family/dt13_06-08.html) your children and your wife, etc. if they suggest worshiping another god. You're supposed to investigate whether other towns are worshipping other gods. If they are, you have to kill (http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/religious_tolerance/dt13_13-15.html) everyone in the town. If a woman who is not engaged to be married is raped, then she has to marry the man who rapes her (http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/rape/dt22_28a.html) .

When you go to war, and win, you are supposed to kill all the male prisoners and use the women for sex (http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/prisoners_of_war/dt21_10a.html)

The more I learn about the Bible, the more shocked I am that people take any of this as the word of a loving creator. It seems more like the notes of a madman.

[/ QUOTE ]

For the umpteenth time, what difference does any of this make? If this God exists, then he must be worshipped. Maybe he is not loving. So what. Maybe he is loving and people just don't get it.

There is only one reason not to worship this God. The fact that he doesn't exist. Which is true for no reasons at all related to his wrath, but only related to reasons why rushes, and tooth fairies don't exist. Period.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
than the one advocated in the old testament. You're supposed to kill (http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_stone_your_whole_family/dt13_06-08.html) your children and your wife, etc. if they suggest worshiping another god. You're supposed to investigate whether other towns are worshipping other gods. If they are, you have to kill (http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/religious_tolerance/dt13_13-15.html) everyone in the town. If a woman who is not engaged to be married is raped, then she has to marry the man who rapes her (http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/rape/dt22_28a.html) .

When you go to war, and win, you are supposed to kill all the male prisoners and use the women for sex (http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/prisoners_of_war/dt21_10a.html)

The more I learn about the Bible, the more shocked I am that people take any of this as the word of a loving creator. It seems more like the notes of a madman.

[/ QUOTE ]

For the umpteenth time, what difference does any of this make? If this God exists, then he must be worshipped. Maybe he is not loving. So what. Maybe he is loving and people just don't get it.

There is only one reason not to worship this God. The fact that he doesn't exist. Which is true for no reasons at all related to his wrath, but only related to reasons why rushes, and tooth fairies don't exist. Period.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, but no one on the other side will accept this. So, rather than just call it quits (boring!) we fight it out on their terms, and say that even if he did exist, he still wouldn't be X, Y or Z. I think most of us would agree that, if he did exist, it wouldn't really MATTER if he was X, Y or Z because he is omnipotent, but its at least something to argue about.

[PairTheBoard]

I believe the question is this: Assuming that God is Love, how can the Bible be considered the Word of God when he is so clearly represented in the Old Testament as being anything but a God of Love? Here is my answer which has now been cross-posted in 3 threads where the issue has been raised.

--------------------------
Try looking at the Old Testament like this. A record of a people coming to terms with a God which they were only beginning to understand. They were trying to turn away from Hate and toward Love but their understanding of God was often tainted by the Hate that was still in them. They often projected attributes of their Hate onto that which they called God and justified acts of Hate accordingly. In their primitive attempts at righteousness they often created brutal laws. With little understanding of the natural world they routinely gave supernatural explanations for things. They made up stories to illustrate principles. They used symbolic, metaphoric, and allegorical language.

Despite all this they progressed spiritually. Look at the Old Testament as a record of spiritual experience and progress. They had spiritual insights along the way. Consider the insights in context of the times and use your own judgement as to how advanced they were. If you find wisdom in the midst of primitive noise, take the wisdom and respect the experience of the lives led. They are our ancestors and our relations in the human struggle. Have some empathy for the difficulties they lived with.

Can you see Love emerging out of all that historical tumult? Can you see Love emerging out of that people who were so clearly infected with atributes of Hate? Can you see Love Fullfilled in the New Testament? If so, you have found the Bible to be the Word of God because God's Word is his essence and the essence of God is Love.
------------------------

If you want my view on how the message of Jesus in the New Testament can be considered one of a God of Love, considering the God of revenge portrayed by Orthodox Christianity with it's afterlife of Hell for some people, you can find it in David's thread on "What Religion Should Be".

PairTheBoard

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
This makes no sense, Jesus isn't necessary for the Jewish laws to be updated...

[/ QUOTE ]

it says right in the bible not to take away from the law and not to add to the law

[kingofmirrors]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This makes no sense, Jesus isn't necessary for the Jewish laws to be updated...

[/ QUOTE ]

it says right in the bible not to take away from the law and not to add to the law

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not so familiar with the specifics of the bible, but even fundamentalist Judaism is not what it was 2000 years ago and that has very little to do with Jesus. Laws may not have been added or taken away, but they certainly have been reinterpreted by great rabbis to fit the context of the times.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
Plus, that's not even IN the bible...source?

[/ QUOTE ]

Did the Church decide to expunge Exodus 12:12 from the official bible? news to me.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
There is only one reason not to worship this God. The fact that he doesn't exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems obvious but I think it's worth pointing out the contradictions Christians make when they talk about an all-loving, merciful god. The god of the bible is not depicted as all-loving or merciful.

If Christians said, "Yes our god is a cruel petulant genocidal maniac, but we worship him anyway", then there would be no reason to debate their position on god's nature. But they don't.

You yourself have tried to point out the ridiculousness of anyone being certain of god's existence. Have you gotten anywhere with Christians using this very reasonable argument? Of course not. The need to believe trumps rational thought.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Plus, that's not even IN the bible...source?

[/ QUOTE ]

Did the Church decide to expunge Exodus 12:12 from the official bible? news to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess you didn't join the distribution list. Yes, Exodus 12:9-12:14 has been removed. Turns out it was a typo.

[Matt R.]

bunny,
Good one. It appears that, based on this translation, God is commanding Israel to commit genocide against the enemy nations mentioned. However, look at the King James translation of the same text:

"16But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:

17But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:

18That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the LORD your God.

If you read this carefully, you can see that according to this translation, it is saying (1) God gave these lands to Israel as their promised inheritence (2) Moses then says that they shall leave nothing alive -- Moses commands them to destroy all that breathes (the genocide) (4) (notice the punctuation at this point; the colon vs. the semicolon, to see which part God is "mandating") God is commanding them: "18That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the LORD your God." (It would make perfect sense if this was the original author's intent when writing this, as this "mandate" stems directly from the 10 commandments).

In other words, God's commandment is to not learn from and engage in these people's "abominations", and worship their foreign gods. Moses infers from this that the nations (whom they are at war with) must therefore be completely destroyed so the Israelites do not learn the sinful behavior.

Now, I am not saying this is conclusive evidence that God does not mandate genocide in this instance. I do not know which text is a better translation of the original author's ideas, and I do not know Hebrew. It is simply interesting, and important, to note that a more historical version is implying that "God mandates Israel does not learn these abominations" and THEN Moses is inferring that this means they must be completely wiped out. Whereas the NIV seems to give the idea that God is mandating the actual genocide. I am sure that we can agree that the wording in the original Hebrew probably becomes extremely subtle when translated to English and one (or more) of the English translations may give the wrong idea for a fragment of one sentence. It just so happens we are arguing over what this one tiny fragment means, so the subtleties in the translation are being magnified to the point where we have no authoritative answer (unless we speak the version of Hebrew used by the original author).

That being said, even if God is mandating that Moses commands Israel to completely destroy these enemy nations, it DOES NOT imply that genocide and war is the correct way to live one's life. In other words, the Bible, when talking about this specific occurence of war and genocide in this one book, is not saying "rape is morally acceptable" or "genocide is morally acceptable". It is saying at this specific moment, due to the fact that these nations want to completely wipe out the nation of Israel, these enemy nations must be destroyed. This comes back around to my point that from our perspective, genocide is always bad. From their perspective, in that culture and in the situation they were in, Moses and the Israelites clearly disagreed. We don't really have much basis to judge them, since they were on the verge of being wiped out by their enemies.

So yes, it is certainly possible that God, based on the quote you gave me, is mandating genocide. As I showed, this *could* be a translational issue from the original Hebrew. I do not know. But, even if God mandates it in this one case, it does not imply that genocide and rape is, in general, morally acceptable. It simply implies that, in this specific situation the Israelites were in, they were to completely destroy the enemy nations (owing to a different culture in a completely different scenario than we would likely see in today's age).

[Matt R.]

Phil153,
Thanks for providing some quotes rather than expecting me to read a book from start to finish for material that may or may not be in there.

From Matthew 5:

It appears these quotes are simply of Jesus saying he comes to fulfill the law. It is clear from the rest of his teachings that he has a vastly different interpretation of these laws than the modern religious people of the time. For example, "He who is without sin cast the first stone..." etc. Just because he thinks that he is there to uphold the law does not mean he believes genocide is morally acceptable. Perhaps he agrees it was okay for Israel to destroy the enemy nations for reasons that I gave in my reply to bunny. I'm not sure. But it doesn't imply that Jesus thinks the OT advocates genocide as a way of life.

Timothy 3:
OK. All scripture is inspired by God. This is what most Jews and Christians believe. Inspired does not mean written by God, so it is possible there are cultural and personal ideas written into the text based on the way society was at the time. Like I've been saying, laws do not necessarily apply in the same way to all time periods or to all situations. As Jesus said, he came to uphold the law, but that doesn't mean he didn't have his own viewpoint as to how the laws should be upheld in modern society.

Mark 7:
If you read the entire chapter, it is clear what Jesus' point was. He was showing the Pharisees that their traditions are actually nullifying God's law, and he was using a law given by Moses to highlight the contrast between modern tradition and OT law. He was telling them that they often follow their tradition and it leads them to disobey God's law. In this case, their tradition dictates that, after giving Corban, they no longer have to do things for their father and mother. Jesus was challenging these ideas based on "tradition", and this was the point he was trying to make. He was simply supporting the idea that, no matter what gifts you give to God, you are still responsible for honoring your father and mother.

Also, I would like to point out that I didn't really think I needed to "google it" to find some Bible passage which you didn't reference. I was teasing you. Sorry if I offended your sensibilities.

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The bible is a collection of stories written by a LOT of different people (inspired or not).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Thanks for clearing that up. Can you provide a list of which are inspired and which aren't? How about god committing genocide on thousands of children? Not inspired, I assume?

[/ QUOTE ]

You misunderstand what I am saying. I am saying that, regardless of whether you believe the books were inspired or not, it is a fact that they were written by many different people. Thus they are subject to different cultures and different viewpoints of the people writing them. Inpired does not mean God actively took over the person's body and wrote the piece of scripture for him/her, so believing the Bible was inspired by God does not imply you must think every action written about in the Bible is equally applicable to your own life. How do you know what is and what isn't? You use your head.

As for your plagues of Egypt example, God was attempting to get the pharoah to release the Israelites. He gave Egypt the opportunity to release them freely. In fact, he elicited 9 other plagues prior to the last one, and the pharoah still refused to release them. Also, the Egyptians were controlling the population of the Hebrews, and in doing so the Egyptians murdered far more Hebrew children than the number of deaths which occurred in the 10th plague. There are a few sites explaining the background to this story, and its far more in depth than simply "God killed a bunch of babies". Yes, he killed the first-born. He did this so Egypt would release the Israelites, and stop killing the children of the Israelites to control their population. He chose to do this so that pharoah would willfully release the Israelites. The alternative would be to free Israel by destroying Egypt (which would result in the deaths of all the children, as opposed to just the first born).

There are others that can explain this far better than I can, as I'm not Biblical scholar. Suffice it to say, there were reasons for the 10th plague, and it does not imply that genocide is, in general, morally acceptable.

[andyfox]

How was the Egyptian common man and woman responsible for Pharoah's policy of keeping the Iraelis in slavery? If God could kill the first born, couldn't he have figured out some other way to convince Pharoah to release the slaves? How about just killing members of Pharoah's family, or desttroying his possessions, or striking him deaf or blind? Were the only alternatives complete destruction of Egypt or killing of the first borns?

I don't see how any reading of the Old Testament can come to anyo ther conclusion but that Yahweh is a bad-tempered prick. Women shall always suffer in childbirth because Eve ate a piece of fruit and discereed that she was naked? Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt because she looked at something which she was instructed not to look at? The whole world was destroyed, save for those creature that Noah put onto the ark, why? Every creature was evil? These strike you as the decisions of a rational, loving entity?

[andyfox]

"what difference does any of this make? If this God exists, then he must be worshipped."

Why? Why should I render homage or reverence to him if he's a prick? Because if I don't, I'll roast in hell for eternity after I die? Won't he know I'm faking it?

Religious people tell us that the God of the Bible is a kind and loving guy. We're trying to point out that the evidence of the Bible shows otherwise. For me to worship him, I'd have to know both that he existed and that he was worthy of worship. That the types of gods various peoples of the world worship correspond to what we would expect given their environments and experiences tells me that man created god(s) rather than vice versa. And the stories from the Old Testament tell me that the God therein--whether he exists or not--is not worthy of veneration.

[andyfox]

It seems to me that Yahweh is at his cruellest In The Beginning (to coin a phrase). Does he indeed get nicer as the Old Testament proceeds? If so, this would seem to back up your rather elegant supposition.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
Religious people tell us that the God of the Bible is a kind and loving guy. We're trying to point out that the evidence of the Bible shows otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

In my religious view, God is not to be found in the primitive portrayals of god by the people of the Old Testament. God is to be found in the progress of Love for those people despite their primitive relationship to it. God is to be found in their Spritual progress not in their Spiritual imperfections. All your observations are valid about where you are looking. You're just looking for God in the wrong place.

PairTheBoard

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
You're just looking for God in the wrong place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't look in the bible to learn about god? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[andyfox]

Did they progress spiritually? I asked you (in another post in this thread) if God became nicer as the Old Testament progresses. If he does, then that would be evidence to support your reading.

One thing I do know is that there was not progress in terms of what Yahweh meant for the people of the book's relationships with nature and those who lived close to nature. The Bible described and portended what writer Frederick Turner (not Frederick Jackson Turner) called a western spirit against the wilderness, and that in turn led to a spirit against wilderness peoples, i.e., native Americans and other natives. It's not by accident that the people who lived by the Bible did so much damage to the earth and those whose god(s) resided in it, rather than above it.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> For the umpteenth time, what difference does any of this make? If this God exists, then he must be worshipped. Maybe he is not loving. So what. Maybe he is loving and people just don't get it. </font>

I very much agree with this. But it's important and matters insofar as it relates to how Christians reconcile such an opposing dichotomy of thought.

I was going to bring this up in your thread about the heroic professor. It doesn't matter WHY God demands that he burn in hell over some technicality about believing in Jesus. If God demands that the only way to salvation in through belief in Jesus, then that's that.

The real problem is how Christians manage to simultaneously hold the belief that this is a just and loving God. They would be better off not making this such a central part of their claim, yet all of them do.

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
For the umpteenth time, what difference does any of this make? If this God exists, then he must be worshipped. Maybe he is not loving. So what. Maybe he is loving and people just don't get it.

[/ QUOTE ] I must worship him? Submit if you like, but I will not. If I learned that God existed and he was as twisted a tyrant as he is portraied to be in the bible, I would refuse to worship him. If I knew with 100% certainty that I would face eternal suffering if I did not submit, but I would recieve eternal hapiness if I pretended to like him and followed his command, I would have to submit. But as long as I am human I will not know that. And whatever happens and whatever tricks he tries, I will not submit to some power hungry tyrant, be he human or god or something else.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For the umpteenth time, what difference does any of this make? If this God exists, then he must be worshipped.



[/ QUOTE ] I very much agree with this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, good. I didn't want to pose this to DS.
How would I pull this off? this worshiping?
I can understand sucking up, or obeying her laws, etc, but worship is not a state of mind that can be turned off and on. If I find her actions disgusting ( so what if I just can't understand that horrid actions are actually wonderful and admirable) how would I turn that revulsion to the depth of admiration and love that worship consists of?

I don't think I could swing it even if I really, really wanted to.

luckyme

[bunny]

I think this is one of the main problems atheists have with christianity (and why all of this matters, to some anyhow, whether DS cares about it or not).

Christians claim to be theists. This includes a benevolent and all-powerful god. This benevolent god who loves everyone then orders (or appoints a human who he knows will give the order) that whole populations be horribly slaughtered. This doesnt gel with most people's intuition on what "benevolent" means - God could have made the whole population die painlessly in their sleep but instead chose the violent, awful method of war. This would be nothing more than a matter of opinion, but people use this book to justify political actions now. Even on a smaller, personal scale, people claim to base their morality on their study of "the good book".

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this is one of the main problems atheists have with christianity (and why all of this matters, to some anyhow, whether DS cares about it or not).

Christians claim to be theists. This includes a benevolent and all-powerful god. This benevolent god who loves everyone then orders (or appoints a human who he knows will give the order) that whole populations be horribly slaughtered. This doesnt gel with most people's intuition on what "benevolent" means - God could have made the whole population die painlessly in their sleep but instead chose the violent, awful method of war. This would be nothing more than a matter of opinion, but people use this book to justify political actions now. Even on a smaller, personal scale, people claim to base their morality on their study of "the good book".

[/ QUOTE ]

Bunny is going to make one kickass atheist some day.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that Yahweh is at his cruellest In The Beginning (to coin a phrase). Does he indeed get nicer as the Old Testament proceeds? If so, this would seem to back up your rather elegant supposition.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't see this post of yours before. I'll admit it's a slow go. I think you do see more self reflection as it progresses. Calls for repentence. Recognition of folly and spiritual pride. Their understanding of God doesn't seem to show much improvement but their spiritual understanding of themselves looks to become more of a concern for them. Something must have happened somewhere along the line because what we hear from Judaism today in large part looks much improved over what you would gather from the attitudes in the Old Testament.

There was certainly a major break between the Old and New Testaments where a God of Love is emphasized. The New Testament did spring from the experience of the Old and its religious decendents.

I'll admit though that without the New Testament it's hard to see much Love coming out of the Old.

PairTheBoard

[godBoy]

If he can find better explanations for his experiences - I suppose he will..

That of course depends on your definition of a 'kickass atheist'. The very idea of a really really good atheist is absurd. You mean to say Bunny would be great at attacking theists reasons for belief someday - which says more about his character than his intelligence.

I don't think he would be as great as you think(in this respect), he seems too decent a person.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
If he can find better explanations for his experiences - I suppose he will..

That of course depends on your definition of a 'kickass atheist'. The very idea of a really really good atheist is absurd. You mean to say Bunny would be great at attacking theists reasons for belief someday - which says more about his character than his intelligence.

I don't think he would be as great as you think(in this respect), he seems too decent a person.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif No, that isn't what I mean by kickass atheist. You're laying the persecution complex on a bit thick, in this and the other thread, aren't you? We're all shedding tears for you.

[godBoy]

Oh, then please do share what you really meant by kickass atheist.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, then please do share what you really meant by kickass atheist.

[/ QUOTE ]

A really cool person who is an atheist? A competent skeptic? Intellectual honesty?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
For the umpteenth time, what difference does any of this make? If this God exists, then he must be worshipped. Maybe he is not loving. So what. Maybe he is loving and people just don't get it.

I very much agree with this.

[/ QUOTE ]
but for the upteenth time we don't have the ability to worship something we loath. Unless you think we can pretend and he wont notice, sure we can do a bit of groveling if that keeps him off our backs

but it doesn't matter. In practice we should always oppose this god and gamble on god being good, however much evidence to the contrary.

chez

[MegaloMialo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For the umpteenth time, what difference does any of this make? If this God exists, then he must be worshipped. Maybe he is not loving. So what. Maybe he is loving and people just don't get it.

I very much agree with this.

[/ QUOTE ]
but for the upteenth time we don't have the ability to worship something we loath. Unless you think we can pretend and he wont notice, sure we can do a bit of groveling if that keeps him off our backs

but it doesn't matter. In practice we should always oppose this god and gamble on god being good, however much evidence to the contrary.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

can you give me your main reasons why god is evil?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For the umpteenth time, what difference does any of this make? If this God exists, then he must be worshipped. Maybe he is not loving. So what. Maybe he is loving and people just don't get it.

I very much agree with this.

[/ QUOTE ]
but for the upteenth time we don't have the ability to worship something we loath. Unless you think we can pretend and he wont notice, sure we can do a bit of groveling if that keeps him off our backs

but it doesn't matter. In practice we should always oppose this god and gamble on god being good, however much evidence to the contrary.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

can you give me your main reasons why god is evil?

[/ QUOTE ]
me?

I don't believe god is evil.

chez

[MegaloMialo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For the umpteenth time, what difference does any of this make? If this God exists, then he must be worshipped. Maybe he is not loving. So what. Maybe he is loving and people just don't get it.

I very much agree with this.

[/ QUOTE ]
but for the upteenth time we don't have the ability to worship something we loath. Unless you think we can pretend and he wont notice, sure we can do a bit of groveling if that keeps him off our backs

but it doesn't matter. In practice we should always oppose this god and gamble on god being good, however much evidence to the contrary.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

can you give me your main reasons why god is evil?

[/ QUOTE ]
me?

I don't believe god is evil.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't believe that the god in the bible is evil?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For the umpteenth time, what difference does any of this make? If this God exists, then he must be worshipped. Maybe he is not loving. So what. Maybe he is loving and people just don't get it.

I very much agree with this.

[/ QUOTE ]
but for the upteenth time we don't have the ability to worship something we loath. Unless you think we can pretend and he wont notice, sure we can do a bit of groveling if that keeps him off our backs

but it doesn't matter. In practice we should always oppose this god and gamble on god being good, however much evidence to the contrary.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

can you give me your main reasons why god is evil?

[/ QUOTE ]
me?

I don't believe god is evil.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't believe that the god in the bible is evil?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't believe the bible is anything to do with god.

chez

[MegaloMialo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For the umpteenth time, what difference does any of this make? If this God exists, then he must be worshipped. Maybe he is not loving. So what. Maybe he is loving and people just don't get it.

I very much agree with this.

[/ QUOTE ]
but for the upteenth time we don't have the ability to worship something we loath. Unless you think we can pretend and he wont notice, sure we can do a bit of groveling if that keeps him off our backs

but it doesn't matter. In practice we should always oppose this god and gamble on god being good, however much evidence to the contrary.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

can you give me your main reasons why god is evil?

[/ QUOTE ]
me?

I don't believe god is evil.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't believe that the god in the bible is evil?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't believe the bible is anything to do with god.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I see, I just wanted to know your main reasons for loathing the god existing in the bible.
So you believe in a god? What more can you tell us about the god you assume not to be evil?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For the umpteenth time, what difference does any of this make? If this God exists, then he must be worshipped. Maybe he is not loving. So what. Maybe he is loving and people just don't get it.

I very much agree with this.

[/ QUOTE ]
but for the upteenth time we don't have the ability to worship something we loath. Unless you think we can pretend and he wont notice, sure we can do a bit of groveling if that keeps him off our backs

but it doesn't matter. In practice we should always oppose this god and gamble on god being good, however much evidence to the contrary.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

can you give me your main reasons why god is evil?

[/ QUOTE ]
me?

I don't believe god is evil.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't believe that the god in the bible is evil?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't believe the bible is anything to do with god.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I see, I just wanted to know your main reasons for loathing the god existing in the bible.
So you believe in a god? What more can you tell us about the god you assume not to be evil?

[/ QUOTE ]
This is getting wierd. I don't believe in god, the point is that even if DS is right in principle in practice it makes no difference because if you're presented with something that claims to be god the best thing to do is oppose it if you believe it to be evil.

chez

[MegaloMialo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For the umpteenth time, what difference does any of this make? If this God exists, then he must be worshipped. Maybe he is not loving. So what. Maybe he is loving and people just don't get it.

I very much agree with this.

[/ QUOTE ]
but for the upteenth time we don't have the ability to worship something we loath. Unless you think we can pretend and he wont notice, sure we can do a bit of groveling if that keeps him off our backs

but it doesn't matter. In practice we should always oppose this god and gamble on god being good, however much evidence to the contrary.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

can you give me your main reasons why god is evil?

[/ QUOTE ]
me?

I don't believe god is evil.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't believe that the god in the bible is evil?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't believe the bible is anything to do with god.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I see, I just wanted to know your main reasons for loathing the god existing in the bible.
So you believe in a god? What more can you tell us about the god you assume not to be evil?

[/ QUOTE ]
This is getting wierd. I don't believe in god, the point is that even if DS is right in principle in practice it makes no difference because if you're presented with something that claims to be god the best thing to do is oppose it if you believe it to be evil.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I will dare one last try. This is a direct question to you.
I understand that you don't believe in god.
The god, as presented in the bible do you believe him to be evil? or do you have no opinion on this matter?
If you believe him to be evil, what are your main reasons for believing so.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For the umpteenth time, what difference does any of this make? If this God exists, then he must be worshipped. Maybe he is not loving. So what. Maybe he is loving and people just don't get it.

I very much agree with this.

[/ QUOTE ]
but for the upteenth time we don't have the ability to worship something we loath. Unless you think we can pretend and he wont notice, sure we can do a bit of groveling if that keeps him off our backs

but it doesn't matter. In practice we should always oppose this god and gamble on god being good, however much evidence to the contrary.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

can you give me your main reasons why god is evil?

[/ QUOTE ]
me?

I don't believe god is evil.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't believe that the god in the bible is evil?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't believe the bible is anything to do with god.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I see, I just wanted to know your main reasons for loathing the god existing in the bible.
So you believe in a god? What more can you tell us about the god you assume not to be evil?

[/ QUOTE ]
This is getting wierd. I don't believe in god, the point is that even if DS is right in principle in practice it makes no difference because if you're presented with something that claims to be god the best thing to do is oppose it if you believe it to be evil.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I will dare one last try. This is a direct question to you.
I understand that you don't believe in god.
The god, as presented in the bible do you believe him to be evil? or do you have no opinion on this matter?
If you believe him to be evil, what are your main reasons for believing so.

[/ QUOTE ]
I find the idea of a god damning people for non-belief as abhorant as anything imaginable.

but its also a very silly and nasty idea and not the only interpretation of christianity. I don't know if that's the god of the bible

chez

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
This would be nothing more than a matter of opinion, but people use this book to justify political actions now. Even on a smaller, personal scale, people claim to base their morality on their study of "the good book".


[/ QUOTE ]

Yep and I think this is Harris' point in "The End of Faith". If people just believed in some old myths and superstitions and left it at that, then they could be easily ignored as quirky eccentrics, like people who believe in gnomes or the tooth fairy.

But when they use their myths and superstitions to claim moral superiority and to impose their will on others, it is a very large problem.

Also it's worth mentioning that just about everyone reading these forums has a large group of people who wants to murder them, because they don't share their specific delusion.

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this is one of the main problems atheists have with christianity (and why all of this matters, to some anyhow, whether DS cares about it or not).

Christians claim to be theists. This includes a benevolent and all-powerful god. This benevolent god who loves everyone then orders (or appoints a human who he knows will give the order) that whole populations be horribly slaughtered. This doesnt gel with most people's intuition on what "benevolent" means - God could have made the whole population die painlessly in their sleep but instead chose the violent, awful method of war. This would be nothing more than a matter of opinion, but people use this book to justify political actions now. Even on a smaller, personal scale, people claim to base their morality on their study of "the good book".

[/ QUOTE ]

bunny,
This is a good point and very well said.

I have a few questions for you. What do you think benevolent and all-loving means? Based on old religion courses I took, all-loving in the context of the original Hebrew translations basically means "wishing another well". Hoping that they have a prosperous life, good things happen to them, they make good decisions in their life, etc. Does all-loving, in this context, imply you cannot punish others who do wrong? Does it imply that you cannot give a decree that an extremely oppressed group of people go to war? Does it mean we have to turn a blind eye to evil actions because we are benevolent and love that group of people anyway?

I do not think being all-loving and benevolent implies these things. In fact, just the opposite is true in my opinion. At some point, even if we deeply care about the well being of someone or another group of people, we may have to take actions against them that ideally we wouldn't wish to take. Of course going to war is an extreme example of this, but I think it should be obvious that some wars are necessary even if we don't want to harm the opposing group (and honestly wish them well... i.e. that they would simply cease their actions and live a "good" life).

As to your assertion that "God could have made the whole population die painlessly in their sleep"; sure he could have. He could make everyone die painlessly in their sleep. He could make everyone live forever (if he's all powerful). This would require intervention by God on a constant basis though, which doesn't seem to jive with there being pain in the first place. There is either pain, or there isn't. Even if God caused them to die painlessly in their sleep (in the Bible story), you could easily move on to the next group of people and say, "hey, why didn't God cause these people to painlessly die in their sleep". The cycle would never end, unless there was no pain, period.

Yes, in this story, God chose to NOT intervene and have the Israelite's enemies painlessly die in their sleep. Instead, he simply told Moses it was time for war, and Moses did the work. This seems reasonable to me, unless we go down the path of God tweaking and optimizing every human action. Essentially, what I am saying is, war is inevitable (and it was in this case, as Israel was in a crappy situation -- due to these enemies around them that they are now at war with), and just because God sanctioned a war does not mean he is a madman and does not love his people.

I think the problem may be in the use of the word all-loving or omnibenevolent. Maybe some theists think one can still be all-loving and allow people to be punished (or allow wars to occur, for whatever reason). Some atheists may think omnibenevolence and punishment are mutually exclusive.

Also, I do not think it is right to justify political actions based solely on a Biblical passage. However, I see nothing wrong in basing your morality on the study of the Bible, just as I don't see anything wrong in basing your morality on the study of a philosopher that you like. I think there is a big difference between "study" and plucking out random quotes to support a moral (or political) position.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Based on old religion courses I took, all-loving in the context of the original Hebrew translations basically means "wishing another well". Hoping that they have a prosperous life, good things happen to them, they make good decisions in their life, etc. Does all-loving, in this context, imply you cannot punish others who do wrong? Does it imply that you cannot give a decree that an extremely oppressed group of people go to war? Does it mean we have to turn a blind eye to evil actions because we are benevolent and love that group of people anyway?

[/ QUOTE ]
I love it, that benevolent god is now becoming a "wishing you well" god. /images/graemlins/smile.gif
So on top of his malevolence, he is also an hypocrite, by wishing some infant well, then allowing the same, just born, to be engulfed by a natural cataclysm and die in agony, just like many animals. Meaning, he drops his eyes of the ball too often, your "wishing you well" god, and takes little, if any responsibility, unless it is simply beyond it do something about it. Ah yes, he must not be omnipotent as claimed.

[Matt R.]

MidGe,
What can I say. I have taken courses which actually try to get at the meaning of the words rather than reading my own pre-conceived notions into them. Yes, love in the context of old Hebrew as used in the Bible closely translates to "wishing another well". I'm glad this makes you all giggly and smiley.

I don't really understand your rant at the end. Are you suggesting God remove all pain and not allow anyone to die? Yes, he wishes people well yet allows them to die. Christians and Jews believe there is an afterlife. For some reason, you think this is far less just than allowing a child to starve to death followed by ceasing to exist.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Christians and Jews believe there is an afterlife. For some reason, you think this is far less just than allowing a child to starve to death followed by ceasing to exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, I see this as far less. I mean dying in agony (even infants just born who had no time to give up their humanity in favor of a tyrant god) is real, to be observed, over and over again, here and now, and it does evoke some compassion in me. I don't even have to try. The other is, at the very best, speculation, and, in my opinion, impossible in fact. Too many contradictions embodied in it. But hey! That is the purpose of faith, allow yourself to hold contradictions in your own mind, so that you can act upon either of opposite idea, as it suits you or your leaders, and still be deceived in believing that one is an honest and well wishing man... acting, obviously as his/her model (god) would. Well, yes... /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[The once and future king]

Time to replace the God is Love bumper stickers with God is wishing you well.

Perhaps we should make it a more contemporary message, how about: God hopes you are ok.

I feel sorry for hardcore Christian mystics. Hermits fasting and taking massive vows of silence so they can feel a oneness with the well wishingness of God.

"After months fasting in the desert, the veils of my human ignorance fell away, my ego was overcome and the whole of creation became a singularity echoing with God hoping I was OK."

Saint Hallmark of Card.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
MidGe,
What can I say. I have taken courses which actually try to get at the meaning of the words rather than reading my own pre-conceived notions into them. Yes, love in the context of old Hebrew as used in the Bible closely translates to "wishing another well". I'm glad this makes you all giggly and smiley.

[/ QUOTE ]

It tells you what it means. Like, what does it mean to love god? Who know? anybody can make up a good story, but the bible is pretty clear about it.
John 14:21 (King James Version)
21He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

So it says right in the bible that you love god and show love to god by basically knowing his rules and following them. You don't really have to look at the etymology of love or anything.

Also note that it is very clear that if you are a christian and you say you love jesus but someone asks you what gods rules are and you say you dont know you just love jesus, then according to the bible you don't really love god because if you did you would learn his rules, and then follow them. I imagine most people who consider themsleves chrisitians today
a) don't realize they are suppose to know and follow gods law
b) because of this they dont' know gods law
c) and not knowing it they obviously dont follow it.

Also the "love your neighbor" thing, you can code plead that out too and find out exactly what that means. I mean it sounds like if you do your neighbors wife that is definitely loving your neighbor, which it definitely is, but not by the biblical definition of love they neighbor.

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Christians and Jews believe there is an afterlife. For some reason, you think this is far less just than allowing a child to starve to death followed by ceasing to exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, I see this as far less. I mean dying in agony (even infants just born who had no time to give up their humanity in favor of a tyrant god) is real, to be observed, over and over again, here and now, and it does evoke some compassion in me. I don't even have to try. The other is, at the very best, speculation, and, in my opinion, impossible in fact. Too many contradictions embodied in it. But hey! That is the purpose of faith, allow yourself to hold contradictions in your own mind, so that you can act upon either of opposite idea, as it suits you or your leaders, and still be deceived in believing that one is an honest and well wishing man... acting, obviously as his/her model (god) would. Well, yes... /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

MidGe,
So, God is a tyrant for allowing people to die. Since we are focusing on Christian and Jewish beliefs in this thread, we will assume there is an afterlife. So we have a God that allows pain and death (and does not sweep in to tweak things to insure equal happiness for everyone), yet he allows an afterlife. As Jesus said, God tends to make things equal in the afterlife (the last shall be first). So we have this evil tyrant God who allows people to get hurt and die, and gives them an eternal afterlife.

On the other hand, we have this bastion of hope and morality known as MidGe. Unfortunately, MidGe is not God and cannot grant an afterlife to those poor and suffering. He is stuck in this world, watching the poor starving children. So, since he cannot give an afterlife and he "knows" that all there is to this world is the pain and the suffering of these poor oppressed people, what does he do? Does he go out of his way to make things better? Does he drop all that he is doing, all of his worldly possessions, to help every single person he can? After all, there is no afterlife for these people. This suffering and death IS ALL THEY HAVE. Yet MidGe, their bastion of hope and their voice on the internet does not go out of his way to help every sick and dying person he can. He sits on the internet criticizing people who believe there is an underlying meaning to everything, and those who believe God ultimately loves them. Those poor people... their internet politician and savior, MidGe, has abandoned them /images/graemlins/frown.gif. I wonder what they would say if you told them their God does not exist and that after all their pain and suffering they would cease to be?

Ahh, MidGe, at least you're not a tyrant. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Edit: /images/graemlins/smile.gif /images/graemlins/smile.gif /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Matt R.]

I also do not know what the hang up is with the Biblical meaning of love. The books are translated from old Hebrew; of course there are going to be subtle twists on a lot of the words that don't quite mean what we think they mean in today's context.

In today's world, if I say I love someone, I certainly wish them well. It's not like it's completely changing the meaning or anything.

I simply don't think saying that I love someone implies that I can never punish them or realize in certain circumstances I have to do things that I wish I did not. Especially in context of the old Hebrew meaning (at least what I learned it meant).

[wtfsvi]

You are spot on Matt R. At least Midge is not a tyrant. He does not committ genocide, and he does not demand that people worship him or hand out horrible punishment for not doing so/following him blindly. So yeah. At least he's not a tyrant.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a few questions for you. What do you think benevolent and all-loving means? Based on old religion courses I took, all-loving in the context of the original Hebrew translations basically means "wishing another well". Hoping that they have a prosperous life, good things happen to them, they make good decisions in their life, etc. Does all-loving, in this context, imply you cannot punish others who do wrong? Does it imply that you cannot give a decree that an extremely oppressed group of people go to war? Does it mean we have to turn a blind eye to evil actions because we are benevolent and love that group of people anyway?

[/ QUOTE ]
I always struggled with what omni-benevolent could mean. If anything, I think it means (or at least includes) a desire to minimise suffering and pain. As such, I dont think it necessarily precludes punishment, perhaps even including violence (although I personally am a pacifist).

[ QUOTE ]
I do not think being all-loving and benevolent implies these things. In fact, just the opposite is true in my opinion. At some point, even if we deeply care about the well being of someone or another group of people, we may have to take actions against them that ideally we wouldn't wish to take. Of course going to war is an extreme example of this, but I think it should be obvious that some wars are necessary even if we don't want to harm the opposing group (and honestly wish them well... i.e. that they would simply cease their actions and live a "good" life).

[/ QUOTE ]
I certainly agree that a case can be made for the necessity of war in some circumstances (I am aware that part of the reason I can afford the luxury of pacifism is because there are other people fighting battles for me - in a perfect world, perhaps my stance would shift to some less extreme position). I am not really criticising a primitive tribe for going to war, I am more making reference to God and his actions or views, as portrayed in the bible.

[ QUOTE ]
As to your assertion that "God could have made the whole population die painlessly in their sleep"; sure he could have. He could make everyone die painlessly in their sleep. He could make everyone live forever (if he's all powerful). This would require intervention by God on a constant basis though, which doesn't seem to jive with there being pain in the first place. There is either pain, or there isn't. Even if God caused them to die painlessly in their sleep (in the Bible story), you could easily move on to the next group of people and say, "hey, why didn't God cause these people to painlessly die in their sleep". The cycle would never end, unless there was no pain, period.

[/ QUOTE ]
I was not suggesting God is bad because there is some pain. Some others may make that claim, but I can accept that maybe the world is a better place (in an "overall" kind of way) given it includes some pain. What I find hard to believe is that God's action (or inaction) in the story as portrayed here minimised suffering.

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, in this story, God chose to NOT intervene and have the Israelite's enemies painlessly die in their sleep. Instead, he simply told Moses it was time for war, and Moses did the work. This seems reasonable to me, unless we go down the path of God tweaking and optimizing every human action. Essentially, what I am saying is, war is inevitable (and it was in this case, as Israel was in a crappy situation -- due to these enemies around them that they are now at war with), and just because God sanctioned a war does not mean he is a madman and does not love his people.

I think the problem may be in the use of the word all-loving or omnibenevolent. Maybe some theists think one can still be all-loving and allow people to be punished (or allow wars to occur, for whatever reason). Some atheists may think omnibenevolence and punishment are mutually exclusive.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think they are mutually exclusive. But the only way I could reconcile the above story consistent with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god would be to claim that the murdered tribe had behaved so abysmally that the punishment they received (ie being massacred) was the only just response. While I can accept that this is possibly true (an omniscient God would be much better at deciding that than me /images/graemlins/tongue.gif) it doesnt gel with my intuition of what "benevolent" means.

A christian who claims that they "got what they deserved" or something similar is being consistent, in my view. But is unlikely to persuade a skeptic that they are correct.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I do not think it is right to justify political actions based solely on a Biblical passage. However, I see nothing wrong in basing your morality on the study of the Bible, just as I don't see anything wrong in basing your morality on the study of a philosopher that you like. I think there is a big difference between "study" and plucking out random quotes to support a moral (or political) position.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with you. I didnt mean to say people shouldnt do this. What I meant is that it can be unnerving to an atheist to here someone say "This book tells me how to live well. It is infallible and I find my moral answers from the stories in here." when the book in question includes stories such as the above which, on the surface, present abhorrent actions as virtuous.

EDIT: Apologies for the delay in responding - I am struggling with internet access at the moment (the more I deal with Telstra, our national, quasi-monopolistic phone provider, the more I sympathise with all our AC posters...)

[Lestat]

I don't agree with you on this Chez. It doesn't matter whether you think God is evil or not, if He in fact exists. The whole system of animals killing other animals in order to eat them and survive can seem evil, but who are we to say? It's the way of the world. Either conform or perish. If God exists, it's His ball and He makes the rules. Maybe when all's said and done, what we thought was evil, really wasn't. But even if it is, it's the way of the universe. Conform or perish. I guess you'd rather perish?

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't agree with you on this Chez. It doesn't matter whether you think God is evil or not, if He in fact exists. The whole system of animals killing other animals in order to eat them and survive can seem evil, but who are we to say? It's the way of the world. Either conform or perish. If God exists, it's His ball and He makes the rules. Maybe when all's said and done, what we thought was evil, really wasn't. But even if it is, it's the way of the universe. Conform or perish. I guess you'd rather perish?



[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Lestat,

I can’t answer for Chez, but I’d rather not perish if I think I can trick this God. As long as I can out smart him, I’ll do what it takes to keep alive. But if I can’t outsmart him, then I won’t worship him and I’ll hope like hell, that there is a better God who will save me for not worshiping a monster, or I’ll just grit my teeth and hope for a Slaughter House Five, type of after life.

[Lestat]

I'm not sure it's even a matter of tricking or out-smarting God. The big thing seems to be "honor" and "obey". Does the bible say anything about "agreeing with"?

[Matt R.]

[ QUOTE ]
I was not suggesting God is bad because there is some pain. Some others may make that claim, but I can accept that maybe the world is a better place (in an "overall" kind of way) given it includes some pain. What I find hard to believe is that God's action (or inaction) in the story as portrayed here minimised suffering.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hey bunny,
Here is what I am getting at. Based on your above quote, you seem to be suggesting that for the God of our universe, if he exists, to be omnibenevolent, he must minimize pain? Is this accurate? At least, you are definitely suggesting that (unless these tribes were completely evil and behaving horribly), that for him to be benevolent he should minimize the suffering of the tribes in THIS case.

Let's assume the tribes which were destroyed were not outright evil... although they probably wished to wipe out the Israelites, I don't think there is much else from the passage (that I recall) which suggests they were monsters. So, if God is omnibenevolent, and the war with Israel was necessary, then God MUST minimize the pain of the opposing tribe if they are being killed, right?

I disagree with this, and here's why (this may be rehashing my last post, but I'll try to make it more clear why I think this). We will assume that, for God to be omnibenevolent, he must minimize the suffering of the tribe or tribes described in Deuteronomy (by making them die in their sleep or whatever, or clearing off some landmass for Israel -- whatever gives everyone the minimal amount of suffering). Now, if God does it in this case, it is clear he must do it in another case, otherwise we could equally say "God is not omnibenevolent, because he did not minimize suffering in this other case." So God must minimize the suffering of the victims in another war which Israel was involved in.

Here is an analogy to how I think of it, similar to a mathematical induction argument. This may sound retarded to you since you are a mathematician, so feel free to laugh at me.

Assume: God must minimize the suffering of people in case X to be considered ombnibenevolent.

(1) (from you assertion) It is a true statement that God must minimize the suffering of people in case X to be omnibenevolent.
(2) God must then minimize the suffering of people in case X+1 to be omnibenevolent. This is from my argument above... we can easily simply move on to the next instance of "non-minimal suffering" if God indeed DOES minimize the suffering in case X.
(3) God must therefore minimize ALL suffering to be omnibenevolent.

In other words, making the claim that "God did not minimize the suffering of the tribes in Deuteronomy, thus he isn't omnibenevolent" is equivalent to saying "God does not minimize the suffering of EVERYONE, thus he isn't omnibenevolent."

The latter statement, while potentially true, is absurd from my point of view. It is clear God created a universe based on physical laws, logic, etc. For him to minimize ALL suffering, he would have to, for example, limit our inherent decision making ability (anything at all that would increase pain would be disallowed), we wouldn't die, and on and on and on. This is what I was getting at when I said "There either is pain, or there isn't". If God must minimize pain in ONE instance to be considered omnibenevolent, he must minimize pain in ALL instances (imo, this would involve simply removing pain). Thus, I don't think "minimizing pain in a specific instance" should be a requirement for omnibenevolence, as it reduces to an absurd claim. If God exists and intervenes, then he CAN minimize pain if he so chooses, but it should not be a requirement for a definition of omnibenevolence, in my opinion. Also, note that to always minimize pain God would always have to intervene and "tweak" the universe. In my opinion, it's kind of silly to have a universe based on physics at all in this case because everything would be unpredictible due to constant interventions; we couldn't, for example, predict the trajectory of a ball because it may or may not hit someone in the head.

This boils down to my claim that pain and suffering is an inherent property of the universe (that cannot and should not be removed) which is a required biological mechanism for us to cope with our environment.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't agree with you on this Chez. It doesn't matter whether you think God is evil or not, if He in fact exists. The whole system of animals killing other animals in order to eat them and survive can seem evil, but who are we to say? It's the way of the world. Either conform or perish. If God exists, it's His ball and He makes the rules. Maybe when all's said and done, what we thought was evil, really wasn't. But even if it is, it's the way of the universe. Conform or perish. I guess you'd rather perish?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you're making the mistake of missing the upside of refusing to conform - similar mistake to the pascal's wager type. Its a gamble either way and the upside of god being good vs god being loathsome makes it an easy call.

It why even if you and DS are right in principle in practice its a bad bet i.e. if you knew it was conform or perish you might be best of conforming but as you can never know that, you're far better off trusting that god is good (by your own sense of goodness, no need to consider any absolute goodness about which you might be mistaken)

I think you should also consider that this loathsome god must want something for itself. Masters who rule slaves through fear want something and so aren't OOO, there may be some value in not providing what they want. Its a problem for a good god as well but at least we can fall back on the idea that his doing it for our benefit.

chez

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was not suggesting God is bad because there is some pain. Some others may make that claim, but I can accept that maybe the world is a better place (in an "overall" kind of way) given it includes some pain. What I find hard to believe is that God's action (or inaction) in the story as portrayed here minimised suffering.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hey bunny,
Here is what I am getting at. Based on your above quote, you seem to be suggesting that for the God of our universe, if he exists, to be omnibenevolent, he must minimize pain? Is this accurate? At least, you are definitely suggesting that (unless these tribes were completely evil and behaving horribly), that for him to be benevolent he should minimize the suffering of the tribes in THIS case.

Let's assume the tribes which were destroyed were not outright evil... although they probably wished to wipe out the Israelites, I don't think there is much else from the passage (that I recall) which suggests they were monsters. So, if God is omnibenevolent, and the war with Israel was necessary, then God MUST minimize the pain of the opposing tribe if they are being killed, right?

I disagree with this, and here's why (this may be rehashing my last post, but I'll try to make it more clear why I think this). We will assume that, for God to be omnibenevolent, he must minimize the suffering of the tribe or tribes described in Deuteronomy (by making them die in their sleep or whatever, or clearing off some landmass for Israel -- whatever gives everyone the minimal amount of suffering). Now, if God does it in this case, it is clear he must do it in another case, otherwise we could equally say "God is not omnibenevolent, because he did not minimize suffering in this other case." So God must minimize the suffering of the victims in another war which Israel was involved in.

Here is an analogy to how I think of it, similar to a mathematical induction argument. This may sound retarded to you since you are a mathematician, so feel free to laugh at me.

Assume: God must minimize the suffering of people in case X to be considered ombnibenevolent.

(1) (from you assertion) It is a true statement that God must minimize the suffering of people in case X to be omnibenevolent.
(2) God must then minimize the suffering of people in case X+1 to be omnibenevolent. This is from my argument above... we can easily simply move on to the next instance of "non-minimal suffering" if God indeed DOES minimize the suffering in case X.
(3) God must therefore minimize ALL suffering to be omnibenevolent.

In other words, making the claim that "God did not minimize the suffering of the tribes in Deuteronomy, thus he isn't omnibenevolent" is equivalent to saying "God does not minimize the suffering of EVERYONE, thus he isn't omnibenevolent."

The latter statement, while potentially true, is absurd from my point of view. It is clear God created a universe based on physical laws, logic, etc. For him to minimize ALL suffering, he would have to, for example, limit our inherent decision making ability (anything at all that would increase pain would be disallowed), we wouldn't die, and on and on and on. This is what I was getting at when I said "There either is pain, or there isn't". If God must minimize pain in ONE instance to be considered omnibenevolent, he must minimize pain in ALL instances (imo, this would involve simply removing pain). Thus, I don't think "minimizing pain in a specific instance" should be a requirement for omnibenevolence, as it reduces to an absurd claim. If God exists and intervenes, then he CAN minimize pain if he so chooses, but it should not be a requirement for a definition of omnibenevolence, in my opinion. Also, note that to always minimize pain God would always have to intervene and "tweak" the universe. In my opinion, it's kind of silly to have a universe based on physics at all in this case because everything would be unpredictible due to constant interventions; we couldn't, for example, predict the trajectory of a ball because it may or may not hit someone in the head.

This boils down to my claim that pain and suffering is an inherent property of the universe (that cannot and should not be removed) which is a required biological mechanism for us to cope with our environment.

[/ QUOTE ]
I do think omnibenevolent means minimising suffering. However, I dont think that necessarily means eliminating it.

Your argument doesnt seem retarded to me - you have a consistent position in my opinion, although it seems to lead to the claim that this is the best of all possible worlds. (ie that if God could minimise the suffering just a tiny bit more he would have.)

I never found this a very satisfactory answer to the problem of evil, but of course that doesnt mean it isnt right.

[MaxWeiss]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Hey, this Brick Testament is great. I looked up the link in my King James bible, about the girl who has to marry her rapist ( Deuteronomy 2-29 ) and sure enough, she has to marry her rapist because, “ he hath humbled her”. But Snowball, you should be informed - preachers don’t use Deuteronomy when preaching to their congregation.



[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah I know. I've been to church. God though. How [censored] cool would it be to preach a guest sermon about this stuff. I am tooooootally down to do this if anyone can set me up with fake credentials at a church anywhere near LA. We need someone to film it though. It'd be like Borat yo.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would attend church for that service.

[SNOWBALL]

God murders jews who complain about wandering in the desert (http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_wilderness/the_fire_of_yahweh/nm10_33.html)

The story of Er and Onan (http://www.thebricktestament.com/genesis/er_and_onan/gn38_01.html)
I guess killing Onan maybe makes sense, but wtf is up with killing Er? All it says is "Er was offensive." I guess bad manners=death

Noah gets drunk, naked, sobers up, acts like a lunatic (http://www.thebricktestament.com/genesis/noahs_insobriety/gn09_20.html)

A couple of jews trick an entire city into circumcizing themselves, and then they murder all of the inhabitants (http://www.thebricktestament.com/genesis/rape_treachery_and_slaughter/gn34_01.html) I wanna make this one into a movie.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Ummm, and the reason NR doesn't respond to this stuff is that he has no response.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I just found this thread.

Pick one thing from the Bible you think proves God is evil. Research it, say why you disagree with the explanation, and I'll respond.

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
Pick one thing from the Bible you think proves God is evil. Research it, say why you disagree with the explanation, and I'll respond.

[/ QUOTE ]

Turning Lot's wife into powder for disobeying orders via a curious glance seems a but harsh. I think gouging out one eye as a warning should be sufficient for a merciful god.

[andyfox]

How about making women suffer in childbirth forever because Eve ate something he did not want her to eat? Or destroying just about every living creature because He felt that "every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually"?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

How about making women suffer in childbirth forever because Eve ate something he did not want her to eat? Or destroying just about every living creature because He felt that "every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually"?


[/ QUOTE ]

That's two. Also no research and explanation. But since it's you ...

Briefly, Eve was punished for her disobedience. After that, as we've discussed before, pain, suffering and death are the result of sin - in general because of Adam and Eve, and sometimes specifically because of individual sin. And yes, infants suffer even though they haven't committed personal sin. Again, as we've discussed before, I believe that any suffering by anyone truly innocent will be balanced by God. He asks no one to endure what He hasn't endured Himself in Christ. Of course, this is a faith position. Once again, as I've said before, the alternative is to admit the universe is meaningless and all human suffering is a cruel joke inflicted by an implacable, impersonal reality. An omnipotent, good God is man's only hope for purpose even in his suffering.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
Once again, as I've said before, the alternative is to admit the universe is meaningless and all human suffering is a cruel joke inflicted by an implacable, impersonal reality. An omnipotent, good God is man's only hope for purpose even in his suffering.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just wanted to chime in to say that this is a very pessimistic view and very open to criticism. Obviously most atheists would disagree with this point. I really think we should talk about this issue in another thread . . .

[guids]

snowball,


read the koran, its about as evil, the difference is christians dont take the OT literally in a lot of regards, whereas it seems a percentage of muslims do.

[andyfox]

Well, let's look at Eve's disobedience. God told Adam not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He did this before he created Eve. Yet Eve tells the serpent that she knows she must not eat of that tree, lest she die. So she must have received the information second-hand, as it were, from Adam.

The serpent tells her directly that she won't die if she eats from the tree, that, rather, she will know good and evil. This surely makes sense since God has named the tree the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Eve saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to look at, and that it would make one wise. And so she listened to the serpent who told her what made logical sense, rather than what Adam told her about God, which didn't. And, lo and behold, what happened. They knew that they were naked! God asked Adam how he knew that he was naked and accused him of eating from the tree.

Adam, of course, refused to take responsibility, blaming his wife (I often choose the same recourse, with about the same lack of success). Who, in her turn, blamed the serpent. And the punishment for this grave transgression, eating a fruit from a pleasant tree that allowed people to know the fact that they were naked, was A) for the serpent, no legs or other means of propulsion, so that he and all his descendants would have to slide and slither thither and yon (I don't know whether this is unfortunate from the standpoint of serpentdom, but I know it's very fortunate for me; else how would I ever come to use "slither thither" in such grand, Seussian fashion?) B) for Eve and all other women, excruciating pain in childbirth forever and subservience to men, also forever; and C) for Adam and all other men, a life of toil and sweat and thorns and thistles.

Note, also, the anti-ecological spirit. Man enters the wilderness of the world, estranged forever from nature, which becomes a cursed adversary, eternally hostile to his efforts at survival. Man becomes an enemy of the animals (Genesis 9:2) and his existence in the world takes on the character of an unremitting contest with nature as he works to fulfill God's command that he subdue the thorny, thistled earth and establish dominion over it and all its creatures.

A god who punishes you and me because of Adam and Eve's sins is cruel. He doesn't have to "balance" this punishment with future kindnesses. 0 + 0 = 0 just as surely as (-10) + 10 does. (I worked this complicated math in for David.) Pain and suffering and death are not the result of sin. They are the result of God defining sin as he defines it and his decision to inflict that pain and suffering and death.

Christ may have done many things, but he surely did not suffer in giving birth to children. So He surely has not endured what he asks others to endure. I would prefer to believe what you want me to believe: that God is good, that God defines Good. But, alas, His own actions belie that assertion.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Well, let's look at Eve's disobedience.


[/ QUOTE ]

I can't read between the lines as well as you so I can't really comment on your narrative. The sin was rebelling against God, though. I could go on about how unreasonable it was to commit any sin given their situation but there's no need to compound the detail. The idea is that sin is sin and God is sovereign. He did show mercy at the time because He didn't carry out the true penalty immediately (death), provided for them (which He continues to do) and promised them redemption (the woman's seed).

The lesson we should learn is that sin is serious. From what seems so trivial comes all the woe of mankind. We think our sin is trivial, that we have good excuses, that we're not really evil, that we don't deserve God's condemnation. God says otherwise. He says "You must be perfect". Any sin falls short of perfection. But He also provides the remedy, and in the end, through grace, makes us perfect.

I would never trivialize the pain of mankind. It's truly mind boggling. But I can think of nothing more depressing that the idea that all of it is completely pointless, that all of the injustice will go unpunished, that all of the cruel acts of cruel men will be forgotten, that all the evil people will get off scott free, that all the hopes and dreams of all the "innocent" don't even amount to a joke.

In the end it's a faith position. If God doesn't exist you have no rational basis for thinking in terms of good and evil. You can't even accuse Him of evil without assuming He exists. I can't explain why all the bad things happen. I can only trust in a God of love and mercy Who took on Himself the punishment I deserve and is willing to count me as righteous, as if I had never sinned at all. Without that, there is truly no hope, no future, no purpose. I'm with Peter - "To whom shall we go Lord? You have words of eternal life".

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
I would never trivialize the pain of mankind. It's truly mind boggling. But I can think of nothing more depressing that the idea that all of it is completely pointless...

[/ QUOTE ]

I can think of something more depressing! That is: that the pain of mankind is justified, even idealized, in the mind of a petty, sadistic Deity who needs mankind suffer to satiate His Divine Wrath. PLUS, he's going to keep some souls extant forever, just so they can suffer some more.

That, to me, is considerably more depressing.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

That is: that the pain of mankind is justified and idealized in the mind of petty, sadistic Deity who must needs mankind suffer to satiate His Divine Wrath.


[/ QUOTE ]

I was talking about reality.

[Subfallen]

Are you saying you don't believe the suffering of the wicked glorifies God? I thought that was pretty standard fare, esp. for Calvinists.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Are you saying you don't believe the suffering of the wicked glorifies God? I thought that was pretty standard fare, esp. for Calvinists.


[/ QUOTE ]

The triumph of God's righteousness and justice over evil glorifies God. You are correct.

[andyfox]

I'm not reading betweeen the lines. I'm taking the passages from Genesis at their face value (King James version; old-fashioned, I know, but that's me).

I agree with you that the sin was rebelling against God: disobeying him. Two definitions of cruel in my old-fashioned disctionary are 1) willfully or knowingly causing pain or distress to others; and 2) rigid; stern; unrelentingly severe. The punishment for this "crime" seems to fit both definitions. You say it was unreasonable for Adam and Eve to commit "any sin" given their situation. Why would eating a piece of fruit be defined as a sin? The only explanation God gives is that is gave them knowledge of good and evil. How could they know it was a sin before they had this knowledge? Is disobedience a "sin"? If I tell my son not to eat a cupcake before dinner, and he does it, it's disobedience. Is it a sin, to be punished by everlasting pain? If I did indeed inflict this punishment, wouldn't you think me cruel?

(BTW, are we sure God didn't keep his word to kill Adam and Eve? Maybe man and woman were scheduled to be immortal and their eventual death was the punishment.)

I truly don't understand your last two paragraphs. If we are God's creations, and we are not perfect, whose fault is that? Your word "trivial" seems apt. A horrible punishment for a trivial act is a very good definition of cruelty.

Putting everything on a god is precisely an irrational way for thinking in terms of good and evil. Why do you deserve punishment for Eve eating the forbidden fruit? Evil people get punished every day; not all of them, but not all the good people get rewarded either. Why does there need to be a god to explain this, to sanction it, to explain that, don't worry, all will be balanced in the end?

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Are you saying you don't believe the suffering of the wicked glorifies God? I thought that was pretty standard fare, esp. for Calvinists.


[/ QUOTE ]

The triumph of God's righteousness and justice over evil glorifies God. You are correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

"The triumph of God's righteousness and justice over evil" == making unbelievers suffer, correct? So basically you agree with my description of the Christian God as a sadistic entity needing human suffering to fulfill His nature; but you just prefer euphemisms. Nice.

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
Once again, as I've said before, the alternative is to admit the universe is meaningless and all human suffering is a cruel joke inflicted by an implacable, impersonal reality. An omnipotent, good God is man's only hope for purpose even in his suffering.


[/ QUOTE ]

So for you it's either Christian God or no God whatsoever and total meaninglessness?

I understand many of your points about morality and meaning, but I've never understood why you've decided the truth has to be found through the Christian God.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Why does there need to be a god to explain this, to sanction it, to explain that, don't worry, all will be balanced in the end?


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a message basically to the forum. I've explained my position multiple times, I don't think I've left out anything. The response has been hostile, stubborn, atheistically certain. I've done this for 2+ years with no apparent effect.

I've been accused many times of being a troll. I don't view myself that way, but I finally understand why people call me that. If I went to an openly atheistic web site and posted like I do, knowing the people there have gathered BECAUSE they are atheists, because they don't believe in God, don't want to believe in God, have no interest in the truth if it involves God, I would be a troll. It has finally dawned on me that though this forum isn't labelled atheist, that's what it is. For me to continue posting here would be troll like. I'm trying to convince people who already, as far as I can tell, are completely inflexible, close minded and have no desire to change or seek the truth through reasonable debate and exchange of ideas. The last few threads I've started demonstrate this completely.

I started doing this while I was just a member of 2+2, and primarily because DS kept asking questions about what Christians believe. I wasn't seeking to preach to atheists or even discuss these issues on a poker forum. I think I've answered all the questions of DS, and a lot more besides.

Therefore, since I probably am a troll from a certain point of view, and because my time is limited and I have much to learn and discuss with people who are going in the same direction as me, I see no point in inflicting my positions on people who have no visible interest in those positions.

I hope all of you come to a knowledge of the truth. God willing, you will. But it's clear to me I can't do it.

Good Luck.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm trying to convince people who already, as far as I can tell, are completely inflexible, close minded and have no desire to change or seek the truth through reasonable debate and exchange of ideas.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure many of the posters in this forum would characterize you in the same way.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
than the one advocated in the old testament. You're supposed to kill (http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_stone_your_whole_family/dt13_06-08.html) your children and your wife, etc. if they suggest worshiping another god. You're supposed to investigate whether other towns are worshipping other gods. If they are, you have to kill (http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/religious_tolerance/dt13_13-15.html) everyone in the town. If a woman who is not engaged to be married is raped, then she has to marry the man who rapes her (http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/rape/dt22_28a.html) .

When you go to war, and win, you are supposed to kill all the male prisoners and use the women for sex (http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/prisoners_of_war/dt21_10a.html)

The more I learn about the Bible, the more shocked I am that people take any of this as the word of a loving creator. It seems more like the notes of a madman.

[/ QUOTE ]

For the umpteenth time, what difference does any of this make? If this God exists, then he must be worshipped. Maybe he is not loving. So what. Maybe he is loving and people just don't get it.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
If God doesn't exist you have no rational basis for thinking in terms of good and evil. You can't even accuse Him of evil without assuming He exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly why this sort of thread is absolutely absurd.

Even though most of you clearly aren't believers, you have to assume the existence of God to make the argument that He is actually evil. But by assuming He exists, you assume that 1) He created the universe, and 2) He created YOU. How does it possibly make sense for you to quibble with him over Deuteronomy when without Him you wouldn't even be here?

DS is right. The only thing that matters is what's true, though he and I disagree on that point.

I can't believe such seemingly bright people don't see how ridiculous it is to assert away your individually differing, subjective, Burger-King-have-it-your-way moralities and believe this somehow proves that your Creator (which you assume in making the argument) is wrong and you are right (even though you all disagree with each other except on that point).

Of course, God knew that people, in their arrogance, would think like this - even Job, who God describes as righteous, did, long before any of you:



1 Then the Lord answered Job from the whirlwind:

2 “Who is this that questions my wisdom
with such ignorant words?
3 Brace yourself like a man,
because I have some questions for you,
and you must answer them.

4 “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?
Tell me, if you know so much.

-Job 38:1-4



9 “What sorrow awaits those who argue with their Creator.
Does a clay pot argue with its maker?
Does the clay dispute with the one who shapes it, saying,
‘Stop, you’re doing it wrong!’
Does the pot exclaim,
‘How clumsy can you be?’

-Isaiah 45:9

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Even though most of you clearly aren't believers, you have to assume the existence of God to make the argument that He is actually evil.

[/ QUOTE ]

actually, you really really don't. Saying "*if* he exists, and he behaves in the way that the bible describes him, then his actions and rules appear to be evil" is different than saying that he *does* exist, and that absolute morality exists.

GAWD.

[bills217]

OK, so you assume he exists (even if maybe you really don't think so) for the purpose of the argument. When you do this (which you must do or else the argument doesn't make sense), saying that you think your Creator is wrong and you are right is preposterous.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
actually, you really really don't. Saying "*if* he exists, and he behaves in the way that the bible describes him, then his actions and rules appear to be evil" is different than saying that he *does* exist, and that absolute morality exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

If absolute morality doesn't exist, I can't imagine why you'd be wasting your time here. Myself, I'm sure I could find a more enjoyable pastime.

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]


If absolute morality doesn't exist, I can't imagine why you'd be wasting your time here. Myself, I'm sure I could find a more enjoyable pastime.



[/ QUOTE ]

I care about what's true

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


If absolute morality doesn't exist, I can't imagine why you'd be wasting your time here. Myself, I'm sure I could find a more enjoyable pastime.



[/ QUOTE ]

I care about what's true

[/ QUOTE ]

So do I - we can agree on that, if nothing else (and judging from this forum and Politics, it probably is close to nothing else). /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[vulturesrow]

This thread seems to be a great summary of the pointlessness of trying to discuss religion with most of the individuals here. Here are a couple of reasons why:

1. Most of you read the Bible the way Bible literalists do (the same people you also make fun of on a regular basis), but when people point that out and offer differing viewpoint you accuse them of making up their own religion or other such nonsense.

2. Hand in hand with the first point is the fact that most of you have never studied the bible, read any works on theology, etc. Instead you start flinging quotes from random websites about and then declare, "Aha, I showed you dumb theists how smart I am, religion is evil, blah blah". Yet when NotReady starts quoting a study he read regarding evolution, you slam him for not knowing the field of study , etc. People in glass houses... I mean do you seriously think that in all the time Christianity has been around that no one else has noticed these "problems". You think people that have studied the Bible for many many years somehow failed to notice these passages in the Bible?

There is more, but I dont feel like ranting, its not really my style. As for NotReady's latest post in this forum, I cant say I blame him. I find this forum as a whole (with a few exceptions) to be quite hostile to theists, which is why I dont post a whole lot in here anymore. I'm not so sure why so many of you seem to take so much joy in trying to tear people's beliefs down, but its apparent to me that you do for some reason.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
This thread seems to be a great summary of the pointlessness of trying to discuss religion with most of the individuals here. Here are a couple of reasons why:

1. Most of you read the Bible the way Bible literalists do (the same people you also make fun of on a regular basis), but when people point that out and offer differing viewpoint you accuse them of making up their own religion or other such nonsense.

2. Hand in hand with the first point is the fact that most of you have never studied the bible, read any works on theology, etc. Instead you start flinging quotes from random websites about and then declare, "Aha, I showed you dumb theists how smart I am, religion is evil, blah blah". Yet when NotReady starts quoting a study he read regarding evolution, you slam him for not knowing the field of study , etc. People in glass houses... I mean do you seriously think that in all the time Christianity has been around that no one else has noticed these "problems". You think people that have studied the Bible for many many years somehow failed to notice these passages in the Bible?

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT. The problem goes both ways though. Theists attack atheist positions in equally ridiculous ways. The main problem is that nobody will admit that they don't understand the other side, but they still argue random talking points they hear everywhere else. Another issue is that there are several posters who are actually interested in reasonable debate, but others interject and escalate arguments and we neevr get anywhere.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
This thread seems to be a great summary of the pointlessness of trying to discuss religion with most of the individuals here. Here are a couple of reasons why:

1. Most of you read the Bible the way Bible literalists do (the same people you also make fun of on a regular basis), but when people point that out and offer differing viewpoint you accuse them of making up their own religion or other such nonsense.

2. Hand in hand with the first point is the fact that most of you have never studied the bible, read any works on theology, etc. Instead you start flinging quotes from random websites about and then declare, "Aha, I showed you dumb theists how smart I am, religion is evil, blah blah". Yet when NotReady starts quoting a study he read regarding evolution, you slam him for not knowing the field of study , etc. People in glass houses... I mean do you seriously think that in all the time Christianity has been around that no one else has noticed these "problems". You think people that have studied the Bible for many many years somehow failed to notice these passages in the Bible?

There is more, but I dont feel like ranting, its not really my style. As for NotReady's latest post in this forum, I cant say I blame him. I find this forum as a whole (with a few exceptions) to be quite hostile to theists, which is why I dont post a whole lot in here anymore. I'm not so sure why so many of you seem to take so much joy in trying to tear people's beliefs down, but its apparent to me that you do for some reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

To be fair, I almost never put forth any anti-Christian argument that wasn't presented to me by a Christian as a pro-Christian argument. You are arguing from an impenetrable, infallible position, here. If I 'interpret' anything in a way you find unflattering, then I'm "flinging" and "acting like a literalist." The way you know my interpretation is the incorrect one is because Christianity is awesome, and I'm saying it isn't so I must be wrong. Forget the fact that I'm presenting Christian arguments, presumably concocted by actual Christians who really DID read the Bible with the intent of finding God. They were wrong, you are right.

I wonder if these types of discussions are more difficult for you when you aren't arguing with atheists. If you were arguing with a different Christian, you wouldn't be able to use these copouts. What would you do then?

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This thread seems to be a great summary of the pointlessness of trying to discuss religion with most of the individuals here. Here are a couple of reasons why:

1. Most of you read the Bible the way Bible literalists do (the same people you also make fun of on a regular basis), but when people point that out and offer differing viewpoint you accuse them of making up their own religion or other such nonsense.

2. Hand in hand with the first point is the fact that most of you have never studied the bible, read any works on theology, etc. Instead you start flinging quotes from random websites about and then declare, "Aha, I showed you dumb theists how smart I am, religion is evil, blah blah". Yet when NotReady starts quoting a study he read regarding evolution, you slam him for not knowing the field of study , etc. People in glass houses... I mean do you seriously think that in all the time Christianity has been around that no one else has noticed these "problems". You think people that have studied the Bible for many many years somehow failed to notice these passages in the Bible?

There is more, but I dont feel like ranting, its not really my style. As for NotReady's latest post in this forum, I cant say I blame him. I find this forum as a whole (with a few exceptions) to be quite hostile to theists, which is why I dont post a whole lot in here anymore. I'm not so sure why so many of you seem to take so much joy in trying to tear people's beliefs down, but its apparent to me that you do for some reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

To be fair, I almost never put forth any anti-Christian argument that wasn't presented to me by a Christian as a pro-Christian argument. You are arguing from an impenetrable, infallible position, here. If I 'interpret' anything in a way you find unflattering, then I'm "flinging" and "acting like a literalist." The way you know my interpretation is the incorrect one is because Christianity is awesome, and I'm saying it isn't so I must be wrong. Forget the fact that I'm presenting Christian arguments, presumably concocted by actual Christians who really DID read the Bible with the intent of finding God. They were wrong, you are right.

I wonder if these types of discussions are more difficult for you when you aren't arguing with atheists. If you were arguing with a different Christian, you wouldn't be able to use these copouts. What would you do then?

[/ QUOTE ]

vhawk,

I wasnt referring to you specifically, I was talking in generalities. I dont mind people interpreting things differently than I do. But I have noticed a definite predisposition to the stance I noted in my post. I really dont see how I am adopting a "copout" position and I have no problem defending my stance against other Christians who dont share my particular views.

[siegfriedandroy]

"Oh yeah, back to the "God may mandate non-standard punishments". I will go back to another point of mine that completely obliterates this thread, and surprisingly no one has responded to (orly?). So, morality is relative right? Since morality is relative, how do you "know" that advocating non-standard methods of punishment (relative to today's standards) is absolutely, morally wrong and that God is a monster for mandating the law? How can this contradiction not be obvious to you? You clearly do not have the perspective to judge the laws of a culture 2000+ years ago. Some "monstrous" laws could very well have been an improvement over previous laws, or have been necessary. You silly atheists and your moral absolutism. Don't you know the full story is important for making these decisions, and we may not know the whole societal context for these people living in a vastly different culture?

You have an intriguing personality mixture of arrogance and stupidity, Phil153. I would advise you to work on the latter as it makes you look silly, but it gives you a sort of endearing quality that I can't quite put my finger on. Maybe it's just because you make me laugh."

I used to argue this morality point all the time on here, but most were either incapable of or refused to understand. The atheists continue to bash the Christian God for things not truly EVIL at all in their own world view, since such an ultimate and absolute evil does not exist according to them (if they are consistent w/ pure atheism). Yet they nonetheless illogically argue as if GOOD and EVIL actually do exist.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This thread seems to be a great summary of the pointlessness of trying to discuss religion with most of the individuals here. Here are a couple of reasons why:

1. Most of you read the Bible the way Bible literalists do (the same people you also make fun of on a regular basis), but when people point that out and offer differing viewpoint you accuse them of making up their own religion or other such nonsense.

2. Hand in hand with the first point is the fact that most of you have never studied the bible, read any works on theology, etc. Instead you start flinging quotes from random websites about and then declare, "Aha, I showed you dumb theists how smart I am, religion is evil, blah blah". Yet when NotReady starts quoting a study he read regarding evolution, you slam him for not knowing the field of study , etc. People in glass houses... I mean do you seriously think that in all the time Christianity has been around that no one else has noticed these "problems". You think people that have studied the Bible for many many years somehow failed to notice these passages in the Bible?

There is more, but I dont feel like ranting, its not really my style. As for NotReady's latest post in this forum, I cant say I blame him. I find this forum as a whole (with a few exceptions) to be quite hostile to theists, which is why I dont post a whole lot in here anymore. I'm not so sure why so many of you seem to take so much joy in trying to tear people's beliefs down, but its apparent to me that you do for some reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

To be fair, I almost never put forth any anti-Christian argument that wasn't presented to me by a Christian as a pro-Christian argument. You are arguing from an impenetrable, infallible position, here. If I 'interpret' anything in a way you find unflattering, then I'm "flinging" and "acting like a literalist." The way you know my interpretation is the incorrect one is because Christianity is awesome, and I'm saying it isn't so I must be wrong. Forget the fact that I'm presenting Christian arguments, presumably concocted by actual Christians who really DID read the Bible with the intent of finding God. They were wrong, you are right.

I wonder if these types of discussions are more difficult for you when you aren't arguing with atheists. If you were arguing with a different Christian, you wouldn't be able to use these copouts. What would you do then?

[/ QUOTE ]

vhawk,

I wasnt referring to you specifically, I was talking in generalities. I dont mind people interpreting things differently than I do. But I have noticed a definite predisposition to the stance I noted in my post. I really dont see how I am adopting a "copout" position and I have no problem defending my stance against other Christians who dont share my particular views.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, I agree with you, lots of religion-bashers or atheists or what-have-yous do often choose the most juvenile and silly attacks on religion. If you ask NotReady, you'll probably find he would characterize me exactly that way, but whatever. I'm not really disputing your claim, you are correct a lot of the time.

The problem is, while your point is sometimes valid, its also seductive. If you can just say "Hey, thats not what the Bible REALLY says" whenever you feel like it, its easy to get carried away. This is what I run into all the time. I will have a discussion with some priest or pastor about some issue in the Bible or some Christian teaching. I'll approach it from a specific angle, we'll go back and forth on it, and I will get what I think is a pretty thorough understanding of his take on the issue. Then, at some later date, I'll get into a similar discussion with some other Christian. I will present my understanding of the Christian position as it was explained to me by this other person, and they will VERY OFTEN immediately blast me as some stupid atheist who reads the Bible like a literalist or who doesn't understand theology or who doesn't care about honest discussion. I'm 100% positive they wouldn't be saying that if I was wearing a collar. Its a copout argument based loosely around the problem that there isn't any single correct interpretation. This bothers me quite a bit. I'm more than willing to accept ANY framework or interpretation of whatever passages you want. I honestly don't really care what the 'true' interpretation is, because I don't think there is one. I'm more interested in what YOUR interpretation is. But then I'm interested in seeing that interpretation carried out consistently and unanimously, and having the discussion be about what the IMPLICATIONS are of that interpretation.

Cliff notes: I'm fairly positive you are correct, and that my interpretation of Christianity is incorrect. But it isn't MY interpretation, its the interpretation of a bunch of Christians that taught it to me. If I weren't an atheist, it would make you a lot more uncomfortable about dismissing my interpretation as obviously incorrect.

[siegfriedandroy]

"Have you gotten anywhere with Christians using this very reasonable argument? Of course not. The need to believe trumps rational thought."

NOOOOOOO!!!!! I guarantee you that, at least for myself and many that i know, it has nothing to do w/ a 'need to believe'. We simply believe that your thought is anything but rational, and in reality far more foolish than you believe ours to be. It is nothing to the effect of, "oh, i know their arguments are sound and sensible, but I will believe anyway." With respect to the morality issue, for instance, it was clear from the start that most who I argued with were completely irrational, and continued arguing that, yes, atheism is consistent with absolute morality. Inconsistencies like these make it difficult to have any respect for many of your logical abilities. Phil exemplifies this in this thread, appealing to great scholarly advances that allow for ultimate and absolute morality in an atheistic world, and definitively categorizi ng the God of the Bible as evil. The ludicracy of such absolute standards existing in an atheistic world is clear to some of you (Sklansky included), but not to others. I have no clue why this is...

[siegfriedandroy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For the umpteenth time, what difference does any of this make? If this God exists, then he must be worshipped. Maybe he is not loving. So what. Maybe he is loving and people just don't get it.

I very much agree with this.

[/ QUOTE ]
but for the upteenth time we don't have the ability to worship something we loath. Unless you think we can pretend and he wont notice, sure we can do a bit of groveling if that keeps him off our backs

but it doesn't matter. In practice we should always oppose this god and gamble on god being good, however much evidence to the contrary.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

This is good. Seems you do indeed have an innate understanding of the difference between good and evil.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For the umpteenth time, what difference does any of this make? If this God exists, then he must be worshipped. Maybe he is not loving. So what. Maybe he is loving and people just don't get it.

I very much agree with this.

[/ QUOTE ]
but for the upteenth time we don't have the ability to worship something we loath. Unless you think we can pretend and he wont notice, sure we can do a bit of groveling if that keeps him off our backs

but it doesn't matter. In practice we should always oppose this god and gamble on god being good, however much evidence to the contrary.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

This is good. Seems you do indeed have an innate understanding of the difference between good and evil.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure nearly all of us do, I hear tell of a few amoral people but I've never met any. I'm not keen on the word 'evil' though as it just stand for the extreme end of things we find morally objectional, but is frequently misunderstood to be meaningless.

chez

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]

NOOOOOOO!!!!! I guarantee you that, at least for myself and many that i know, it has nothing to do w/ a 'need to believe'. We simply believe that your thought is anything but rational, and in reality far more foolish than you believe ours to be. It is nothing to the effect of, "oh, i know their arguments are sound and sensible, but I will believe anyway." With respect to the morality issue, for instance, it was clear from the start that most who I argued with were completely irrational, and continued arguing that, yes, atheism is consistent with absolute morality. Inconsistencies like these make it difficult to have any respect for many of your logical abilities. Phil exemplifies this in this thread, appealing to great scholarly advances that allow for ultimate and absolute morality in an atheistic world, and definitively categorizi ng the God of the Bible as evil. The ludicracy of such absolute standards existing in an atheistic world is clear to some of you (Sklansky included), but not to others. I have no clue why this is...

[/ QUOTE ]

First, as an atheist I am NOT arguing for an "absolute" morality of human interaction. I am arguing for a morality that reflects the ethical intuitions that humans have actually evolved.

Second, Christian morality is not meaningfully more "absolute" than any other morality unless you either (1) prove that the Christian God exists; or (2) special plead that the Christian God exists.

(1) is impossible (by definition of Christian orthodoxy); and (2) rescinds any claim of "absolute" authority because special pleading is non-absolute, again by definition.

[djk123]

You can't just rip the bible in half and completely ignore the NT. I agree the world of the OT was extremely brutal and God was often a vengeful God, but the NT changes everything. It's the fulfillment of the OT. Fwiw, I have been raised a Catholic, but I am not so sure about it anymore.

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]

You can't just rip the bible in half and completely ignore the NT. I agree the world of the OT was extremely brutal and God was often a vengeful God, but the NT changes everything. It's the fulfillment of the OT. Fwiw, I have been raised a Catholic, but I am not so sure about it anymore.



[/ QUOTE ]

The NT isn't so great either. Women aren't allowed to talk in church according to the NT.
Also, if a woman doesn't wear a head scarf, you're supposed to shave her bald. That's also from the NT.

[guids]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You can't just rip the bible in half and completely ignore the NT. I agree the world of the OT was extremely brutal and God was often a vengeful God, but the NT changes everything. It's the fulfillment of the OT. Fwiw, I have been raised a Catholic, but I am not so sure about it anymore.



[/ QUOTE ]

The NT isn't so great either. Women aren't allowed to talk in church according to the NT.
Also, if a woman doesn't wear a head scarf, you're supposed to shave her bald. That's also from the NT.

[/ QUOTE ]

you really dont understand the beliefs of the typical christian in america.

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]
you really dont understand the beliefs of the typical christian in america.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes I do.

[djk123]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You can't just rip the bible in half and completely ignore the NT. I agree the world of the OT was extremely brutal and God was often a vengeful God, but the NT changes everything. It's the fulfillment of the OT. Fwiw, I have been raised a Catholic, but I am not so sure about it anymore.



[/ QUOTE ]

The NT isn't so great either. Women aren't allowed to talk in church according to the NT.
Also, if a woman doesn't wear a head scarf, you're supposed to shave her bald. That's also from the NT.

[/ QUOTE ]

None of that was decreed by God though. Those stupid laws were a product of the culture/society. If women couldn't even vote in the U.S. until the early 20th century, I am confused as to why you are surprised that women were discriminated against and treated unfairly 2000 years ago.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You can't just rip the bible in half and completely ignore the NT. I agree the world of the OT was extremely brutal and God was often a vengeful God, but the NT changes everything. It's the fulfillment of the OT. Fwiw, I have been raised a Catholic, but I am not so sure about it anymore.



[/ QUOTE ]

The NT isn't so great either. Women aren't allowed to talk in church according to the NT.
Also, if a woman doesn't wear a head scarf, you're supposed to shave her bald. That's also from the NT.

[/ QUOTE ]

None of that was decreed by God though. Those stupid laws were a product of the culture/society. If women couldn't even vote in the U.S. until the early 20th century, I am confused as to why you are surprised that women were discriminated against and treated unfairly 2000 years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because he agrees with the fundamentalists that any reading of a religious text must be literal. If God didn't object to it, then he must have been okay with it, which means he is immoral at best!

[demon102]

crazy things like what u describe is y I quite christianity when I was 10 yrs old, it just didnt make sense to me