A bloodthirsty god?

[Autodidact]

You're using one post by one person to judge a religion with millions of members:sarcastic? And expecting the rest of us to make the same gross generalization

Well, assuming that the poster is correct, that is. Does anyone want to disagree with him or her?

 

[logician]

You're using one post by one person to judge a religion with millions of members:sarcastic? And expecting the rest of us to make the same gross generalization

Generalizations are OK if they are backed up by statistics. I expect a lot of Christians believe this way.

 

[Riverwolf]

Generalizations are OK if they are backed up by statistics. I expect a lot of Christians believe this way.

Guess what, this generalization is NOT backed up by statistics, based simply on the Christians on this forum. Only the loud ones are like this, and even then, that's stretching it.

 

[McBell]

Generalizations are OK if they are backed up by statistics. I expect a lot of Christians believe this way.

Guess what, this generalization is NOT backed up by statistics, based simply on the Christians on this forum. Only the loud ones are like this, and even then, that's stretching it.

Please present these statistics.

We have claims that contradict one another, now let us present the facts (or in this case statistics) and find out who has the right of it (or in this case the one who is better at finding ratifying stats).

 

[Zion_Lion08]

What statistics are we speaking of?

 

[gnostic]

Free from all the bonds of reality. Free from life, free from death, free from having to eat, having to drink, being nailed to the ground by gravity, unable to breath in space or underwater, unable to accelerate to the speed of light to go wherever I want, free from time, etc...

Freedom from food?!

But I LOVE MY FOOD. Without tasty food, life would have no meaning to me.

Oh no. This too much to bear. I think I'm goinggggg toooooo faint.

:thud:

 

[UnityNow101]

Are we to be like the mindless Seraphim, singing hymns to someone for all eternity?

That is what it looks like when reading the Book of Revelation..Believers will be blind worshippers of God singing "Praise the Lord on the throne" all day and night. It looks like there may be free will here on earth, but you can throw away the notion of it existing in heaven.

 

[Riverwolf]

Freedom from food?!

But I LOVE MY FOOD. Without tasty food, life would have no meaning to me.

Oh no. This too much to bear. I think I'm goinggggg toooooo faint.

:thud:

Maybe I should have said, freedom from the need for food.

 

[gnostic]

That is what it looks like when reading the Book of Revelation..Believers will be blind worshippers of God singing "Praise the Lord on the throne" all day and night. It looks like there may be free will here on earth, but you can throw away the notion of it existing in heaven.

That's why I think I don't want to be in heaven. I don't think what can be more useless - and let's not forget - so borrrrringggg, just singing the praises to god for all eternity.

It would be like listening to your one favorite song on a tape, over and over again, for the next 10 years. Except that you would be sick of that song probably after the 1st four hours. That song would be no longer your favorite.

 

[gnostic]

Maybe I should have said, freedom from the need for food.

Maybe, I was exaggerating just a tidbit.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

I don't see the God of the bible to be a nice god. There is something horribly unfair and bloodthirsty with this god.

One example is this.

When Saul was king, Samuel, the prophet and the last Judge, gave God's order to the king.



Why does a god want to or need to punish generations of people that were not directly involved with what happened to the Exodus?

The war against the Amlekites in Moses' day (Exodus 17:8-16) was fought and won.Why punish the Amalekites centuries later?

It would seem that God can hold a very long grudge against people.

I don't remember where exactly in the bible, but it say something like children shouldn't have to pay for the sins of the father, and the father shouldn't have to pay for the sins of his son.

Certainly God don't practice what he preach, reach: and can be as pettily mean and vindicative as any human. :fight:

Is there really any justification for the genocide of the Amalekites?

For some reason, I find it rather pathetic that those who criticize religions for being dogmatic dogmatically cling to notions that religions have largely abandoned.

 

[McBell]

For some reason, I find it rather pathetic that those who criticize religions for being dogmatic dogmatically cling to notions that religions have largely abandoned.

What I find interesting is how anyone who believes that their deity is NEVER changing have abandoned anything that God commanded...

 

[Rolling_Stone]

What I find interesting is how anyone who believes that their deity is NEVER changing have abandoned anything that God commanded...

For some reason, I find it rather pathetic that those who criticize religions for being dogmatic dogmatically cling to notions that religions have largely abandoned.

For example, they say they believe in evolution, but when they meet the evolution of religion, like theologically expanding concepts of infinity and eternity and supreme values, they decry the change rather than celebrate its advancement. Religion, they think, must conform to their biased preconceptions or be discredited.

God is in man and man in God, but while God is, man is becoming.

 

[gnostic]

For example, they say they believe in evolution, but when they meet the evolution of religion, like theologically expanding concepts of infinity and eternity and supreme values, they decry the change rather than celebrate its advancement. Religion, they think, must conform to their biased preconceptions or be discredited.

God is in man and man in God, but while God is, man is becoming.

In every-day life, evolution is hardly a concept that I think so much about. I understand the (some of) concepts of evolution and there are evidences to support the concepts. But evolution is not about god or about god's rules and laws.

And beside that, what does evolution have to do with god being cruel or not?

Evolution is not about god or about god's rules and laws. I am not thinking of evolution, because it in no way relates to the OP. Beside all this, the bible is not for or against science/evolution. My guess that you are trying redirect my attention elsewhere, by changing the subject.

Your god does contradict himself in your bible, through his actions and his words.

I don't remember which verse, but your God had a law that no man should pay the price of the sins for his father or that of his son's sins. But in Exodus 20, in regarding to idolatry (Ten Commandments), he would punish future generations, even up to the 4th generation, for the past sins of the forefather.

Is that just? Is that not contradictory?

The example of genocide of the Amakelites is clearly a parallel of future generation paying the price of the sins of past generation. There is a gap of couple centuries between that of Moses' time and that of Saul's. That's a long time to hold a grudge, and exterminate women and children just because the Amakelites had attack the Israelites during the Exodus.

The textual evidences are there for us to examine about God's attitude and treatment toward men...even though there are no true (physical) evidences to support to events relating the bible. But that's all we have.

If you don't want to debate about God or uncomfortable with the subject, then by all mean, ignore the thread. Or you can place whatever view, persuasion or insight that would refute my view, or better yet, enlighten me how I got the interpretation wrong.

Jumping and stomping on evolutions, could not phase me, because it is really not important to me in my life.

You view your God is about love. I see some evidences of this (like the way he treats Abraham, Jacob, David), but I also see evidences that he is not about love (as in the case with genocide of Amakelites).

Was the order for genocide of the Amakelite women and children justified? Do you think it was action of love?

 

[Riverwolf]

In every-day life, evolution is hardly a concept that I think so much about. I understand the (some of) concepts of evolution and there are evidences to support the concepts. But evolution is not about god or about god's rules and laws.

And beside that, what does evolution have to do with god being cruel or not?

Evolution is not about god or about god's rules and laws. I am not thinking of evolution, because it in no way relates to the OP. Beside all this, the bible is not for or against science/evolution. My guess that you are trying redirect my attention elsewhere, by changing the subject.

Your god does contradict himself in your bible, through his actions and his words.

I don't remember which verse, but your God had a law that no man should pay the price of the sins for his father or that of his son's sins. But in Exodus 20, in regarding to idolatry (Ten Commandments), he would punish future generations, even up to the 4th generation, for the past sins of the forefather.

Is that just? Is that not contradictory?

The example of genocide of the Amakelites is clearly a parallel of future generation paying the price of the sins of past generation. There is a gap of couple centuries between that of Moses' time and that of Saul's. That's a long time to hold a grudge, and exterminate women and children just because the Amakelites had attack the Israelites during the Exodus.

The textual evidences are there for us to examine about God's attitude and treatment toward men...even though there are no true (physical) evidences to support to events relating the bible. But that's all we have.

If you don't want to debate about God or uncomfortable with the subject, then by all mean, ignore the thread. Or you can place whatever view, persuasion or insight that would refute my view, or better yet, enlighten me how I got the interpretation wrong.

Jumping and stomping on evolutions, could not phase me, because it is really not important to me in my life.

You view your God is about love. I see some evidences of this (like the way he treats Abraham, Jacob, David), but I also see evidences that he is not about love (as in the case with genocide of Amakelites).

Was the order for genocide of the Amakelite women and children justified? Do you think it was action of love?

I agree with you. And often the defense against this is "The Old Testament doesn't apply anymore." And before anyone says that, if the Old Testament isn't applicable anymore, why is it still part of the Bible?

 

[McBell]

For some reason, I find it rather pathetic that those who criticize religions for being dogmatic dogmatically cling to notions that religions have largely abandoned.

For example, they say they believe in evolution, but when they meet the evolution of religion, like theologically expanding concepts of infinity and eternity and supreme values, they decry the change rather than celebrate its advancement. Religion, they think, must conform to their biased preconceptions or be discredited.

God is in man and man in God, but while God is, man is becoming.

Please see post #94.
Thank you.

 

[crystalonyx]

This and other threads explore the possibility of theodicy, which is basically the attempt to exonerate God in the face of the evil apparent in creation or evil done at his hands or by his authorization.

As a Christian, I find this among other passages deeply troubling. But the real issue, for me at least, is the question of God's attitude toward his creation and the people that populate it. And to answer that question, my controlling image is the cross. There, God demonstrated his love for all of humanity and made a full disclosure of his character -- nonviolent and longsuffering. Yes, this observation must be held in tension with passages as we see here. But in the end, we are looking through a glass darkly, as they say. We know only in part, and what we do know we're apt to confuse. In the end, we can only place ourselves at the mercy of the Creator, whether he is a tyrant (as you may fear) or a benevolent father (as you may hope). What other option -- assuming the existence of a creator -- are open to us?

You can simply ignore it, there seem to be no obvious ramifications for doing so.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

Why does a god want to or need to punish generations of people that were not directly involved with what happened to the Exodus?

The Scriptures, primarily the Old Testament, and especially its most violent passages where a "people" are wiped wiped out, were written in a time well before individualism made its way into the human world view. Its important to understand in which sense "a people" constituted a single unit, in which sense the individual was so completely dominated by the needs of the whole. The distinction between individual guilt and the tribe or nation to which they belonged was not always so clear. In fact I would say that there is something to be recovered in this view, in the sense that we have lost a sense of the interdependence of human beings and the reality that we really do participate in one "Adam", that each individual arises in vital dependence on the other and never exists in isolation, but is always in some sense affected by the deeds of the other, the tribe, the nation. Though I would say something like Global Warming helps direct us back to this important truth: in some ways the consequences of sin (ie. disregarding the sanctity and order of the earth) really are burdened by others seemingly disconnected from the tarnishing act.

Now I would argue, as the Scriptures progress,God essentially seeks to liberate the individual by validating his existence in the gradual pursuit of justice. For the Hebrew Scriptures this culminates in the Prophets, for Christians in Christ.

I think also in this there is something of the mystery of God's method of revelation and means of salvation. This is the importance of God dealing with single, often underdog, individuals: Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David. He enters into the "one Adam", the oneness of humanity through elected individuals- in fact the mystery of the election of a single nation is also hinted at here. God enters the whole through the particular, and thus both the whole and the particular are saved. Thus also we can see the importance of hinging salvation on a particular individual: Jesus Christ.

I would say then that these statements of tension in the Scriptures primarily indicate to us the mystery of the whole and particular, the one and the many, the constant struggle to mind both the unity of humankind and the dignity and freedom of the individual.

 

[Riverwolf]

The Scriptures, primarily the Old Testament, and especially its most violent passages where a "people" are wiped wiped out, were written in a time well before individualism made its way into the human world view.

I'm not sure I understand why you put people in quotations. Are you implying that the ones who were slaughtered were less than human somehow?

 

[Poisonshady313]

I'm not sure I understand why you put people in quotations. Are you implying that the ones who were slaughtered were less than human somehow?

To emphasize that they're generally not thought of as many individuals, but one united people... i.e. a nation.