Why Believe Jesus Never Had Sex?

[sojourner]

Yes, usually a contract between two tribes. The wishes of the couple were irrelevant

I understand it’s still that way in some fundigelical households...

Is fornication so immoral that Jesus should never have been born

You’re forgetting that his mother was an unwed teenager...

 

[sojourner]

Yes.,.,. and no.

Yes, an unspiritual person can critique but it would be an error in it explanation. So, an unspiritual person critiques the message and says "There is no God". Yes... it is a critique but also wrong.

But if an unbeliever reads a spiritually sound critique, because they are seeking spiritually, they can and will find value in it.

I think we might be end up splitting hairs here.

corrections made

I think we’re talking past each other. Let me clean up my point a little, because I don’t think I really got it across. All the exegetical process does is determine what the texts say. Anyone can successfully engage that process. In that sense, a nonbeliever can come to an understanding of what the text is saying, even if s/he doesn’t buy it. One doesn’t need to buy it in order to understand it.

 

[Kenny]

I think we’re talking past each other. Let me clean up my point a little, because I don’t think I really got it across. All the exegetical process does is determine what the texts say. Anyone can successfully engage that process. In that sense, a nonbeliever can come to an understanding of what the text is saying, even if s/he doesn’t buy it. One doesn’t need to buy it in order to understand it.

And, yes, that is a possibility.

 

[nPeace]

Genesis 6: 5-7

Thanks.
I read it, but I don't see anything that says God created anything defective, and knew how they would turn out.

It only says what you correctly mentioned here, where you said...

...we see God as having regretted the evil course that His creation was taking and He took matters into his own hands.

Only it wasn't

Right at the very beginning of the story of God

I am glad you got the correct interpretation there though... that it was the evil course that His creation was taking that God regretted. Very good.

So it was just your opinion then that God created anything defective, and knew how they would turn out? Not actually that it is anywhere in scripture.

 

[ecco]

Not really.
You took it as all encompassing.

Uh huh.

Here is your original post:

you must be born-again for the words are spiritual words and must be understood by a spiritual being that is made in His image. Otherwise you are interpreting things through a western humanistic belief system. Two different languages.​

You are born again by accepting the blood that He shed for the remission of your sins and accept Him as Lord and Savior and that he was risen from the dead.​

You:

you must be born-again for the words are spiritual words and must be understood by a spiritual being​

-and-

You:

You are born again by accepting the blood

1. I can't understand the words and be born again until I "accept the blood".
2. I won't "accept the blood" because I cannot understand the words that tell me to "accept the blood".

And you never asked a question.

I don't need to ask a question. Your words are very clear.

 

[nPeace]

In fact, in the creation myth, God does not know everything.

Apparently, it is possible to read the same book and come to completely different conclusions.
How would we know who has the right conclusion, though?
A process of illumination can get us closer to the truth.

Who usually changes their conclusions?
Then that person either is guessing, can't make up their mind, or is just trying to find fault, wherever they think they can.
So that illuminates them.

 

[ecco]

Right at the very beginning of the story of God we see God as having regretted the evil course that His creation was taking and He took matters into his own hands.

Is your God not thought to be omniscient? How can an omniscient God regret that which He omnipotently created?

This motif is repeated over and over again throughout the Bible indicating that the reality of God's creation is a goal of good which is fallen short of.

Is your God not thought to be omniscient? How can an omniscient God repeatedly regret that which He repeatedly omnipotently created?

We make it hard on God so much of the time...

It's more like He intentionally made it impossible for us and then blamed us.

 

[sealchan]

Thanks.
I read it, but I don't see anything that says God created anything defective, and knew how they would turn out.

It only says what you correctly mentioned here, where you said...

Only it wasn't

I am glad you got the correct interpretation there though... that it was the evil course that His creation was taking that God regretted. Very good.

So it was just your opinion then that God created anything defective, and knew how they would turn out? Not actually that it is anywhere in scripture.

So you would NOT equate that God's creation having gone totally evil IS that God created something defective? That seems like a stretch.

 

[sojourner]

Apparently, it is possible to read the same book and come to completely different conclusions.
How would we know who has the right conclusion, though?
A process of illumination can get us closer to the truth.

Who usually changes their conclusions?
Then that person either is guessing, can't make up their mind, or is just trying to find fault, wherever they think they can.
So that illuminates them.

Yes, the texts are multivalent, so it’s not a question of “who’s right,” it’s a question of “is the interpretation true to a good exegesis?”

 

[sealchan]

Is your God not thought to be omniscient? How can an omniscient God regret that which He omnipotently created?



Is your God not thought to be omniscient? How can an omniscient God repeatedly regret that which He repeatedly omnipotently created?



It's more like He intentionally made it impossible for us and then blamed us.

These are valid questions and they seem pretty obvious to me to be implied by the story. The problem is, of course, that many, even most Bible believers whitewash this. They try to put the blame on people and not on their creator. I would argue that both are responsible not just one side so this leaves your question open.

I think the original story tellers understood that talking about God was always a matter of interpreting what has happened (and let's take it for granted that the stories' authors considered the Flood to be an historical event or at least a well-known legendary story. The problem they were trying to address was to understand what would drive the creator to perform such an action and to make this an important image of just who the Creator was.

I like to consider this story as an answer to the question, "Why does nature seem like it might wipe us all out?" Massive floods or earthquakes or fires seem like the creator is at least somewhat indifferent to humans. The story also indicates that this sort of mass destruction would never happen again. The authors put God in the role of being capable of this which makes sense since nature seems capable of this and God is the God of Nature.

It also takes the idea that a Creator might destroy His creation and put that squarely within the power of what humans might be able to effect. This intensifies the importance of the relationship between God and humanity.

But it does so at the sacrifice of a sense that God knows precisely what He was doing and what the outcome would be. The Garden of Eden story also seems to do this. I believe that these stories were written not to answer all questions but to invite discussion such that one would have to think about one's own life and other scripture in order to put together any kind of answer to these questions.

in the final analysis God is always somewhat inscrutable because well so is His creation. This God created everything and who are we to judge? But we got to wonder sometimes what was God thinking and did He expect things to go this way? And if you think that God has created a Universe where bad things only happen to bad people (and therefore, logically, those pre-Flood people must have really been bad) then you haven't read the whole Bible.

The other idea which doesn't negate your questions but puts some partial context to these stories in their defense is that we are God's children and He must allow His children to have enough freedom to make mistakes and learn from them. But, apparently, there is a limit. So should we understand that the God who created an evolutionary Universe would not permit all species to flourish but only those which adapted to their environment sufficiently. So many species have simply been removed as failures in this limited sense.

What was God thinking? Is he omnipotent, omniscient? That is certainly up to debate.

 

[sealchan]

Yes, the texts are multivalent, so it’s not a question of “who’s right,” it’s a question of “is the interpretation true to a good exegesis?”

I would also say that the goal is not to arrive at a final rational understanding but to have endless fruitful discussions.

 

[sojourner]

Is your God not thought to be omniscient? How can an omniscient God regret that which He omnipotently created

You’re conflating accounts. In that particular account, God is not omniscient.

What’s going on is that we have access to many different stories that each paint a particular picture of God. Our work is to look at each one to see what it has to teach us about ourselves. We don’t need to try to cobble together these sometimes disparate accounts into some kind of Frankensteinesque caricature of God. That’s neither our job, nor is it productive.

 

[sojourner]

I would also say that the goal is not to arrive at a final rational understanding but to have endless fruitful discussions.

Yes. See above.

 

[ecco]

No you’re not “going by what is written.” You are interpreting — albeit sloppily.

Really? Let's see...

1. You’re engaging in eisegesis — the process of reading things into the texts that are not there.
2. When you simply “read the words on the page,” you’re neglecting a necessary process of engagement with form, literary, historical, sociological, and a few other critical methods that are necessary to come to an understanding of what these ancient writers are actually saying.

In 1. you say I'm "reading things into the texts that are not there".
In 2. you say I need to "come to an understanding of what these ancient writers are actually saying".

If I did that, I'd be "reading into the text things that are not there".

Damned if I do, damned if I don't.

“What is written” isn’t just the words on the page. By doing that, you’re coming up with an interpretation by default. The authors are not saying that “God is a genocidal maniac.”

Of course they didn't say “God is a genocidal maniac.” They didn't even consider horrifically killing almost all humans and animals "bad". That in and of itself says a lot about the "authors". I put "authors" into quotes because, for some reason, you used the plural.

I never used the word "maniac" either, so I don't understand why you put that in quotes. That's very dishonest of you.

Maniac refers to people, not gods. If a person is maniacal, some courts may absolve the person because he isn't responsible for his actions. Your God is responsible for His actions.

Nevertheless, I did use genocide...

the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.
​

But that really doesn't cover it. Perhaps I should have used omnicide...

The total extinction of the human species as a result of human action.
​

Well, you can see the two problems with that: The Flood didn't cause the "total" extinction and it sure wasn't caused by humans.

Perhaps we need a new word to describe a God killing almost all humans and animals. How about Gomnicide always written with a capital "G".

So, back to basics. Did your God kill almost all humans on earth? Yes! The closest we can get in the English language is "genocide". If you want to call that "an interpretation by default", OK.

​

 

[sojourner]

Of course they didn't say “God is a genocidal maniac.”

Then where did you come up with whole “God committed genocide” thing, if it’s not there in the text? Answer: you inferred it from the story, which means you interpreted what was actually written. Again: poorly.

They didn't even consider horrifically killing almost all humans and animals "bad". That in and of itself says a lot about the "authors". I put "authors" into quotes because, for some reason, you used the plural

Of course they did! But, in the story, the evil was so pervasive that it was worse than making a clean sweep. You’re treating the story as if it were news reporting instead of an allegory of the state of humanity. Your interpretation of what is written is sloppy.

I used the plural, because there are at least four different authors for Genesis. The plural is correct.

Your God is responsible for His actions

To whom? Who, in the world of the flood narrative, has authority higher than God to whom God should be accountable? You don’t get to just insinuate your own biases into the story. It results in a poor interpretation, such as you’re demonstrating magnificently here.

Nevertheless, I did use genocide...
the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.
But that really doesn't cover it. Perhaps I should have used omnicide...
The total extinction of the human species as a result of human action

You understand that this is both mythic and allegory, right? You do realize that the authors are making a point toward which the story details point, yes?

So, back to basics. Did your God kill almost all humans on earth? Yes!

No. It’s mythic and allegory. Didn’t actually happen. The theological point of the story is the “righteous remnant” — a recurring theme in biblical narrative — not “God is a genocidal monster.”

 

[nPeace]

How does making it official change anything?

Read on.

Men bought women/girls all the time in the bible.

They also sinned against God, reguarlly.

Jesus' ancestor, needed for Jesus to exist, included a woman who prostituted her father in law.
Tamar (Genesis) - Wikipedia

Jesus' ancestor, needed for Jesus to exist, included someone else's wife.
Bathsheba - Wikipedia

Is fornication so immoral that Jesus should never have been born?

Can you elaborate please?

I am. My father cheated on my mother while married. Clearly, marriage isn't a magic spell that stops hormones.

True. Some people use toothbrushes to do strange things. I think the inventor might be somewhat upset still.

As an omnipotent being, why would I wait until it got that bad?

God: I'm not going to do anything or say anything or guide anyone like any decent creation would do. I'm just going to sit here and when it inevitably fails due to My negligence, I'm going to get mad at THEM.


He DID stand by. Hebrews were supposedly enslaved for centuries at a time before God bothered to do anything. Some religions are even PROUD that God only sends a messenger every thousand years or so. Is that not the textbook definition of laziness? When you're not in that sweet spot where God gets up off His behind, you're left to your own, right?

Let's say you have a pressing need and go to a hospital. The receptionist says that it's unfortunate you're bleeding to death, but the surgeon can pencil you in a century from now. Does THAT make you want to go with this surgeon?

I mean, people are so quick to vilify those who turned "against" God, but seriously, with that work ethic, who could blame them?

I'm thankful for his patience, as many others are. Patience is a good thing. It allows people opportunities.
Say the situation is not as bad as it looks to you, and the surgeon knows what he is doing.
I think you exaggerated - not even slightly.

So punish the angelic rapists, not the victims. GOD, the God the bible is stupid.

Some things do look stupid to us, but when we get to understand them, they don't look stupid anymore. We look stupid.

Okay, well, I worship God even though I feel now that the Abrahamics have turned from God and worship texts instead because a text is something you can hold in your hand and you've been conditioned to believe that if it's written down, it's true. You (general) don't have to worry about the messiness of having an actual relationship with a living entity. It's like the people who fall in love with romance book characters.

The phrase, "I worship God" sounds nice. I personally think it's a good thing to worship God.
How did you figure out how to worship God though?
Do you know if God is pleased with your worship? How do you know?

Again, God is bragging about NOT DOING HIS JOB and you love this about Him?

His job? Who gave him a job, and what is it?

Which is never established as anything more than a claim, like how in WW 2, depending on who was telling the story, the Allies or the Axis ate babies or something. Racist hyperbole was NEVER in the bible except, I dunno, EVERYWHERE.

I suppose it would depend on what the reader thinks about the source - whether it can be trusted or not.

So, again, God is killing the VICTIMS of nonconsensual sex rather than just the actual perps? And you're FINE with that?

I don't have all the facts. If you do, please share them.
However, I don't think you do, unless you are actually one of the fallen angel pretending to be a mortal.
What I do know, is that the God of the Bible has a reputation for being good, and of always doing what is right.
Creation alone, tells us that the creators power, wisdom, love, and justice are in perfect balance, and to accuse him of wrong is actually stupid, because we are so much lacking in just those four attributes.

Such rank idolatry. Do you not see yourself equating a DEITY with a BOOK?

If the book is from God, I'm not the one needing to worry, about not seeing creation's wonders for eternity. So, No.

How did you determine the biblical authors had God's word?

I created a thread on that. I'm sure you saw it. How do you determine you have God's approval, or consideration?

I've seen enough YEC'ers to know they either slept through education or know what they are saying are lies.

I'm not one, but still it's not reasonable to judge them all by assumptions.

I'm a gentile woman. You couldn't PAY me to enjoy biblical "standards" that get me stoned for basically existing.

I grew up on a cartoon called Superbook, where some kids time travel to biblical times. As an adult, I find it unbelievable. If those kids and the robot showed up, they'd be executed by an angry mob for being demons or something. The people in that book are NOT decent people, ESPECIALLY if they say they are.

Hey! I like the Superbook animations. Its not 100% accurate, but I think the producers did an excellent job, especially with the morals of the story for the young ones. I think anyone that puts that effort into teaching young one has a really good heart.
With all the hate for God and the Bible, I say to them, "Well done!"

You specifically justified God's genocide by saying nearly the entire planet was filled with evil people.

edit:

God is justified in doing what he wants. I don't need to do that.
Look at this world. Are you happy with it? Do you know who is really to blame?
Here is what God says through a messenger.
(Romans 1:18-32)
18 For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way, 19 because what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. 20 For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable. 21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their senseless hearts became darkened. 22 Although claiming they were wise, they became foolish 23 and turned the glory of the incorruptible God into something like the image of corruptible man and birds and four-footed creatures and reptiles. 24 Therefore, God, in keeping with the desires of their hearts, gave them up to uncleanness, so that their bodies might be dishonored among them. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for the lie and venerated and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than the Creator, who is praised forever. Amen. 26 That is why God gave them over to uncontrolled sexual passion, for their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; 27 likewise also the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full penalty, which was due for their error. 28 Just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to a disapproved mental state, to do the things not fitting. 29 And they were filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, and badness, being full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, and malice, being whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, schemers of what is harmful, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, false to agreements, having no natural affection, and merciless. 32 Although these know full well the righteous decree of God - that those practicing such things are deserving of death - they not only keep on doing them but also approve of those practicing them.

When people do wickedness, and know that they are doing wickedness, and couldn't care less about the source of life, but rather prefer to behave like pigs wallowing in the muck...
Sounds justified to me.

When God's wrath comes down on the heads of the wicked, it will be for the good of those who hate to have muck on them - who love righteousness and peace.
So I can picture the smiles on their faces when power from above is released in a most terrifying way.
Amen. Come lord Jesus.

Armageddon
[GALLERY=media, 8643]Armageddon by nPeace posted Aug 17, 2018 at 2:19 PM[/GALLERY]

It's a constant problem of the bible's writing ability, that powers are claimed and then never followed through.

What Happened to the Mouse? - TV Tropes

We'll see, I suppose.

A good King wouldn't just sit on his throne until it got that bad. It turns out that promoting education and healthcare and stuff will bring those rates down.


So, He's negligent.

What would you have suggested the king do?
So I guess you would say that there are many - if not all -terrible rulers today then.

He's SO clueless Hebrews have to cut off their foreskins and paint their doorways with blood so God can tell them from Egyptians. And God MADE them! AND saw them naked!

Oh so you are thinking of a magic God. Sorry, that's not the God of the Bible, and it does reveal how fair he is. He would never sweep away the righteous along with the wicked. Awesome!

 

[ecco]

These are valid questions and they seem pretty obvious to me to be implied by the story. The problem is, of course, that many, even most Bible believers whitewash this. They try to put the blame on people and not on their creator. I would argue that both are responsible not just one side so this leaves your question open.

I think the original story tellers understood that talking about God was always a matter of interpreting what has happened (and let's take it for granted that the stories' authors considered the Flood to be an historical event or at least a well-known legendary story. The problem they were trying to address was to understand what would drive the creator to perform such an action and to make this an important image of just who the Creator was.

I like to consider this story as an answer to the question, "Why does nature seem like it might wipe us all out?" Massive floods or earthquakes or fires seem like the creator is at least somewhat indifferent to humans. The story also indicates that this sort of mass destruction would never happen again. The authors put God in the role of being capable of this which makes sense since nature seems capable of this and God is the God of Nature.

It also takes the idea that a Creator might destroy His creation and put that squarely within the power of what humans might be able to effect. This intensifies the importance of the relationship between God and humanity.

But it does so at the sacrifice of a sense that God knows precisely what He was doing and what the outcome would be. The Garden of Eden story also seems to do this. I believe that these stories were written not to answer all questions but to invite discussion such that one would have to think about one's own life and other scripture in order to put together any kind of answer to these questions.

in the final analysis God is always somewhat inscrutable because well so is His creation. This God created everything and who are we to judge? But we got to wonder sometimes what was God thinking and did He expect things to go this way? And if you think that God has created a Universe where bad things only happen to bad people (and therefore, logically, those pre-Flood people must have really been bad) then you haven't read the whole Bible.

The other idea which doesn't negate your questions but puts some partial context to these stories in their defense is that we are God's children and He must allow His children to have enough freedom to make mistakes and learn from them. But, apparently, there is a limit. So should we understand that the God who created an evolutionary Universe would not permit all species to flourish but only those which adapted to their environment sufficiently. So many species have simply been removed as failures in this limited sense.

What was God thinking? Is he omnipotent, omniscient? That is certainly up to debate.

One can look at the bible in different ways.

Some people believe the bible is the True Word of God. These people are faced with the dilemma of an Omniscient God "regretting" how His creation turned out, not once but multiple times. In the instance of Adam & Eve He heaped sin on them to extend for all time. In the instance of the Flood, He killed most of them.

In reality, the OT stories are a compilation of myths that predate the writing of the OT by millennia. Stories that go back to early thinking/talking humans asking questions like where did man come from, addressing morality and passing on knowledge. Unanswerable questions were answered with GodDidIt.

Even today people rely on GodDidIt.

 

[nPeace]

So you would NOT equate that God's creation having gone totally evil IS that God created something defective? That seems like a stretch.

For something to be defective, it must have a flaw. Do you agree?
When God created Adam and Eve, what was the flaw?

 

[ecco]

ecco said: ↑
Is your God not thought to be omniscient? How can an omniscient God regret that which He omnipotently created?

You’re conflating accounts. In that particular account, God is not omniscient.

What accounts am I conflating? I'm talking about the OT. I'm addressing people who believe God is omniscient. There is no on/off with omniscience.

 

[nPeace]

Yes, the texts are multivalent, so it’s not a question of “who’s right,” it’s a question of “is the interpretation true to a good exegesis?”

Yes. I agree, and I think we can determine that by a process of elimination (I spelled that word wrong previously), as I showed.

Did God know that Adam and Eve would sin?, is one question.
If a person says yes, and later says no, the we can eliminate that person.
If they say yes, and if conflicts with the overall text, then we can eliminate them.
Agreed?