A bloodthirsty god?

[Riverwolf]

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

Okay. Thanks.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Please see post #94.
Thank you.

I did. Thank you. Need I say more more? It proved that what I said is true.

 

[McBell]

I did. Thank you. Need I say more more? It proved that what I said is true.

It may have proven what you THINK/THOUGHT you said, but it did not prove what you DID say.


You are a rather interesting person.
It seems that the more people do not understand your point, the happier you are.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Mestemia can't understand so I'll try to spell it out:

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.

I really wonder if you were trying to prove my assertion correct. It's as though critics of religion are more addicted to the concept of a wrathful God than theists.

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.

All this assumes exactly what I said you assume: that theism must forever conform to your biased preconceptions or be discredited. Mestemia, are you sure you still want to say :cover:, that you don't get it, at least in this case?

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

Hey, I'm a fan of evolution, but like you, I don't give it much thought in my daily life. But there's evidence ideas evolve, too. Or do you belong to the Flat Earth Society?

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?

1. Maybe you didn't notice, but the God of the OT is entirely different than that of the NT.
2. Literalism (as many others have pointed out) seems to be more of a problem among non-believers than believers.
3. The Bible is a kind of fetish for you, but not for all believers. IMO, and in the opinion of many, anything that man gets his hands on is polluted thereby.
4. To assume that my interpretation must conform to your biased and ill-informed interpretation is, to put it mildly, arrogant or ignorant--I don't know which.
5. Really, you should be less literal-minded and put more thought into the matter. The Bible is not about history as much as about life-lessons.

I'm not much of a Dennis Prager fan, but he does a pretty good job of explaining things and putting them in perspective. I won't do it for you because I'm not good at it, but I know others can because I've heard them. Besides, I'm not much of a Bible fan even though I recognize how important it is in the history of the world.

 

[gnostic]

I really wonder if you were trying to prove my assertion correct. It's as though critics of religion are more addicted to the concept of a wrathful God than theists.

No, rolling stone.

I am only taking your bible, and seeing in the context of what are written in the bible. I see both good and bad in what God did in the bible.

Goods like the freeing of Israelites from slavery in Egypt. Appointing David as better king than his predecessor.

You on the other hand, is white-washing what God did do. Like the example that I have already given in this topic, the order of slaughtering every man, woman and child, because of something that happened couple hundred years earlier.

Again, I ask you "why"?

Why did God ordered such extreme measure of slaughtering even infants?

From what I read from posts, I have been given things, that sounded more like excuses that God didn't order it, or that it did not happen. Or that I should take think literally.

Sorry, but you have a biblical account that are written in the narrative historical form, instead of vision/prophecy.

If you don't take these narrative accounts literally, then God don't really exist, and all these prophets and scribes are lying about these events, fabrications, fictions - and myths.

So how do you judge what biblical stories to be true, and what is fiction?

Is the story about Saul and David true? Is it a fabrication? Am I reading nothing but lies? Is God a fabrication of these so-called prophets? A propaganda, to make Israel great?

If it is nothing more than life lessons, then Adam, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and Jesus are nothing than literary characters with distorted basis of life.

You can't have it both way, rolling stone.

If they are life lessons, then perhaps you can tell me if the following is real or not:

Did Jesus result from virgin birth? Or was his father biological mortal?

Did Jesus exorcise demons and heal the sick?

Did Jesus actually perform other miracles, like walking on water?

Did Jesus die and resurrect on the 3rd day as the gospels say? Or is that fictional too?

If you say that all the gospels Jesus did (and I don't mean his teachings and parables) as true, then aren't you taking the supposed life-lesson "literally"?

If the kingdom of heaven and salvation are only metaphors and life lesson, then wouldn't it stand to reason that it is not real, and that you are all taking it "literally"?

 

[Riverwolf]

No, rolling stone.

I am only taking your bible, and seeing in the context of what are written in the bible. I see both good and bad in what God did in the bible.

Goods like the freeing of Israelites from slavery in Egypt. Appointing David as better king than his predecessor.

You on the other hand, is white-washing what God did do. Like the example that I have already given in this topic, the order of slaughtering every man, woman and child, because of something that happened couple hundred years earlier.

Again, I ask you "why"?

Why did God ordered such extreme measure of slaughtering even infants?

From what I read from posts, I have been given things, that sounded more like excuses that God didn't order it, or that it did not happen. Or that I should take think literally.

Sorry, but you have a biblical account that are written in the narrative historical form, instead of vision/prophecy.

If you don't take these narrative accounts literally, then God don't really exist, and all these prophets and scribes are lying about these events, fabrications, fictions - and myths.

So how do you judge what biblical stories to be true, and what is fiction?

Is the story about Saul and David true? Is it a fabrication? Am I reading nothing but lies? Is God a fabrication of these so-called prophets? A propaganda, to make Israel great?

If it is nothing more than life lessons, then Adam, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and Jesus are nothing than literary characters with distorted basis of life.

You can't have it both way, rolling stone.

If they are life lessons, then perhaps you can tell me if the following is real or not:

Did Jesus result from virgin birth? Or was his father biological mortal?

Did Jesus exorcise demons and heal the sick?

Did Jesus actually perform other miracles, like walking on water?

Did Jesus die and resurrect on the 3rd day as the gospels say? Or is that fictional too?

If you say that all the gospels Jesus did (and I don't mean his teachings and parables) as true, then aren't you taking the supposed life-lesson "literally"?

If the kingdom of heaven and salvation are only metaphors and life lesson, then wouldn't it stand to reason that it is not real, and that you are all taking it "literally"?

I'm not sure you really understand what Rolling Stone was saying. It's not important whether or not the stories in the Bible are true. Maybe they are, maybe not. What's important is the morals it teaches. If you read the Gospels, especially Matthiew, you'll see that Jesus spent most of his time telling stories to teach lessons to people who didn't understand the philosophies he was talking about. And I recently read John, where Jesus doesn't tell stories, and while I'm not Christian, I found it was very inspiring. And again, WHO CARES IF IT'S REAL OR NOT?!

Don't forget that the Bible isn't a single book. It is a collection of stories that priests brought together in one volume so as to bring order to the growing Christian population. The Bible is thus flawed, for men wrote it. Even if it was inspired by YHWH, that doesn't remove the biases that some of the writers would have, and slaughtering enemies was commonplace at the time. The Hebrews weren't the only ones who did that, you know.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Sorry, but you have a biblical account that are written in the narrative historical form, instead of vision/prophecy.

If you don't take these narrative accounts literally, then God don't really exist, ...

That's clearly nonsense.

 

[gnostic]

That's clearly nonsense.

Be that as it may; it is no more nonsense than that Mary remained virgin after the birth of Jesus, and the other Mary, the Magdalene is a prostitute. The Christians writers have inflated stories, with their nonsensical traditions. I doubt even today that Christians that Christians don't believe in these traditions.

I can understand if people don't prophecy in the bible "literally". I can understand if people take the parables that Jesus "literally" because I understand the nature of the parables, being what rolling stone call it, a "life lesson". But how do you tell the narrative as being true event that actually had taken place, and what have been invented, like a myth?

If some of the narratives cannot be take literally, then wouldn't it stand to reason that other narratives can't be taken at its face's value, such as:-

1. Jesus' birth,
2. Jesus and the Devil conversation,
3. the apostles witnessing Moses and Elijah on the mountain,
4. Jesus walking on water,
5. Jesus calming the storm,
6. Jesus healing the sick,
7. Jesus expelling demons,
8. and Jesus' resurrection.

If you don't think that God ordering Saul (via the prophet/judge Samuel) can be taken "literally", then can Christians take any of the events of Jesus' life, death and resurrection, "literally".

And if Jesus' life can't be taken literally, then there is no real rewards in heaven and no punishment in hell. If you can't it literally on some of these events, then Jesus is not really the "son of God", but of Mary's husband, Joseph or someone else.

 

[gnostic]

Don't forget that the Bible isn't a single book. It is a collection of stories that priests brought together in one volume so as to bring order to the growing Christian population. The Bible is thus flawed, for men wrote it.

I understand all that. In fact that what I think of the bible.

Even if it was inspired by YHWH, that doesn't remove the biases that some of the writers would have, and slaughtering enemies was commonplace at the time. The Hebrews weren't the only ones who did that, you know.

I understand this as well.

What I don't understand is, why a Christian, like Rolling Stone, is trying to whitewash what is written. Why a god who can save Israel from slavery, and yet not believe that God didn't give any order of genocide.

There is story of creation, but there's also story of destruction, eg. Flood. They seemed to accept God is responsible for both, and yet Christians tends to quibble over God's responsibility on the genocide of the Amakelites.

So I have to ask the question "why?"

If they take the Genesis not seriously or literally, then fine.

If they take the genocide of the Amakelites not literally, then fine.

Then how cannot question the validity of the gospels and their belief in their god, as being fictional.

I do not deny most of the things found in the bible as awe-inspiring and some of the teachings have universal values, wisdom and appeals. After all the bible is the central core of their belief systems for couple of millenniums and sprawed 3 different religions along the way. So I don't discount it.

What I do discount is the way Christians today interpret things, as they question the way I interpret them.

 

[Riverwolf]

Be that as it may; it is no more nonsense than that Mary remained virgin after the birth of Jesus, and the other Mary, the Magdalene is a prostitute. The Christians writers have inflated stories, with their nonsensical traditions. I doubt even today that Christians that Christians don't believe in these traditions.

I can understand if people don't prophecy in the bible "literally". I can understand if people take the parables that Jesus "literally" because I understand the nature of the parables, being what rolling stone call it, a "life lesson". But how do you tell the narrative as being true event that actually had taken place, and what have been invented, like a myth?

If some of the narratives cannot be take literally, then wouldn't it stand to reason that other narratives can't be taken at its face's value, such as:-

1. Jesus' birth,
2. Jesus and the Devil conversation,
3. the apostles witnessing Moses and Elijah on the mountain,
4. Jesus walking on water,
5. Jesus calming the storm,
6. Jesus healing the sick,
7. Jesus expelling demons,
8. and Jesus' resurrection.

If you don't think that God ordering Saul (via the prophet/judge Samuel) can be taken "literally", then can Christians take any of the events of Jesus' life, death and resurrection, "literally".

And if Jesus' life can't be taken literally, then there is no real rewards in heaven and no punishment in hell. If you can't it literally on some of these events, then Jesus is not really the "son of God", but of Mary's husband, Joseph or someone else.

And I say again, why does it matter whether or not the magical events in the Bible were true? For argument's sake, let's say that Jesus didn't actually exist, and that nothing spoken of in the Bible has any historical truth to it. Does that make the parables he taught worthless because they were spoken by someone who doesn't exist? Does that make the idea that even out of a tragedy an incredible thing can happen null? Does that make the elegant writing of the King James Version garbage?

Just now, I thought of a new way the Bible could be viewed as. It could be a collection of teachings both on what to do, and what not to do. If that's the case, the parts where the Hebrews killed claiming that YHWH told them to could be viewed as a teaching as to what not to do, whereas the bits where Jesus was healing people with seemingly infinite patience(and I'm sure he felt often "what have I gotten myself into?") could be seen as lessons as what to do. Not healing with magic, mind you, but simply helping those in need regardless.

 

[gnostic]

Does that make the parables he taught worthless because they were spoken by someone who doesn't exist?

As I said in my last post, I don't deny there are certain wisdom in the bible. I admired some of Jesus' teachings.

Heck, there are some wisdom and moral in Tolkein's The Lord of the Rings, if anyone bother to read it.

I am not arguing if the bible is factual true or not.

I am arguing with Christian interpretations of the books and passages, and what they considered to be true or not.

There is a big difference here. I hoped that you understand that difference.

And it is the gist of the topic I have started.

 

[Riverwolf]

I understand all that. In fact that what I think of the bible.


I understand this as well.

What I don't understand is, why a Christian, like Rolling Stone, is trying to whitewash what is written. Why a god who can save Israel from slavery, and yet not believe that God didn't give any order of genocide.

There is story of creation, but there's also story of destruction, eg. Flood. They seemed to accept God is responsible for both, and yet Christians tends to quibble over God's responsibility on the genocide of the Amakelites.

So I have to ask the question "why?"

If they take the Genesis not seriously or literally, then fine.

If they take the genocide of the Amakelites not literally, then fine.

Then how cannot question the validity of the gospels and their belief in their god, as being fictional.

I do not deny most of the things found in the bible as awe-inspiring and some of the teachings have universal values, wisdom and appeals. After all the bible is the central core of their belief systems for couple of millenniums and sprawed 3 different religions along the way. So I don't discount it.

What I do discount is the way Christians today interpret things, as they question the way I interpret them.

Okay, I see where you're coming from now. (I was typing up my last post as you posted this one)

BTW, the Flood was an actual event, as on a global scale, there was, in fact, a great flood, not covering the whole world, but surely raising the water level rapidly so that coastal villages would not have time to escape and many small nations were lost forever. There are accounts in nearly every culture if you go back far enough of some sort of catastrophic flood. It's actual cause and time period aren't certain. I think it was triggered by a sudden loss of ice in the north and south, maybe due to some sort of polar heatwave, or (as I've seen theorized by some others whose names slip my mind at the moment) a meteorite crashing into the north or south pole. My History teacher last college semester told us the Flood of Noah might have been inspired by the flooding of the Black Sea ten thousand years ago, or something like that, give or take a millennium. Whatever the scale, it was a real event that affected real people. Now, whether or not a very, very, very, VEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRYYYYYYYYYYYYY, old man new it was coming and somehow managed to built a giant galleon, the first one in history and last for a thousand years at least, fill it with two of every animal(except the Unicorn escaped:sad4 and wait the flood out for 40 days and nights, before shooting a bunch of goats with a slingshot filled with food- wait, that was the SNES game! actually happened, well...

 

[Riverwolf]

As I said in my last post, I don't deny there are certain wisdom in the bible. I admired some of Jesus' teachings.

Heck, there are some wisdom and moral in Tolkein's The Lord of the Rings, if anyone bother to read it.

I am not arguing if the bible is factual true or not.

I am arguing with Christian interpretations of the books and passages, and what they considered to be true or not.

There is a big difference here. I hoped that you understand that difference.

And it is the gist of the topic I have started.

Again, I'd hadn't read your previous post yet. Sorry. :sorry1:

 

[Tyr]

If it wasnt for the bloodlust of human kind the world wouldnt be like it is today i personaly attribute religion with human kinds need to fill in gaps, we need ways to explain what we do and how we feel and saying god wills it or god told me to works for most people

 

[gnostic]

Again, I'd hadn't read your previous post yet. Sorry.

No need to apologise. *waves hand*

You are not the only one who have misunderstood what I've said or write, and I doubt you would be the last.

Being misunderstood is in fact, the story of my life.

 

[crystalonyx]

Okay, I see where you're coming from now. (I was typing up my last post as you posted this one)

BTW, the Flood was an actual event, as on a global scale, there was, in fact, a great flood, not covering the whole world, but surely raising the water level rapidly so that coastal villages would not have time to escape and many small nations were lost forever. There are accounts in nearly every culture if you go back far enough of some sort of catastrophic flood. It's actual cause and time period aren't certain. I think it was triggered by a sudden loss of ice in the north and south, maybe due to some sort of polar heatwave, or (as I've seen theorized by some others whose names slip my mind at the moment) a meteorite crashing into the north or south pole. My History teacher last college semester told us the Flood of Noah might have been inspired by the flooding of the Black Sea ten thousand years ago, or something like that, give or take a millennium. Whatever the scale, it was a real event that affected real people. Now, whether or not a very, very, very, VEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRYYYYYYYYYYYYY, old man new it was coming and somehow managed to built a giant galleon, the first one in history and last for a thousand years at least, fill it with two of every animal(except the Unicorn escaped:sad4 and wait the flood out for 40 days and nights, before shooting a bunch of goats with a slingshot filled with food- wait, that was the SNES game! actually happened, well...

The story of Noah and the Ark is quite illogical and an obvious work of fiction.

 

[Riverwolf]

The story of Noah and the Ark is quite illogical and an obvious work of fiction.

I was making an agnostic joke. I know the biblical story of Noah and the ark is, in all probability, fictional. Then again, there are many things in this world that are quite illogical, Spock. (meant in good terms. I'm a bit of a budding Trekkie)

 

[logician]

If you had male and female of every animal on a boat for an extended time, I wonder what most would be doing to pass the time?

 

[McBell]

If you had male and female of every animal on a boat for an extended time, I wonder what most would be doing to pass the time?

Wishing they had more food?

 

[Riverwolf]

If you had male and female of every animal on a boat for an extended time, I wonder what most would be doing to pass the time?

Well, in the Super Nintendo game, Super 3D Noah's Ark, you go around the ark shooting food at hundreds of goats and other animals, and the game takes place near the end of the hundred and fifty days, so...