Is God Really Good?

[Gary Sheldrake]

I like to hear their reasons and see if I can argue with them.

This is my favorite post ever! I love it - so honest and to the point! That's what everybody here does but no one ever says it.

 

[Akivah]

Maybe you should try reading for comprehension. Where do you think I said that God commanded this for everyone?

How do you define 'a commandment from G-d'?

 

[Akivah]

It would be interesting if you could take away promises of afterlives in peoples religions that have them, and see if those people still believed in their religions without their reward.

That would be an interesting discussion.

 

[Smart_Guy]

I think god is 75% good. There's just a missing "O".

No seriously, I believe goodness is so highly subjective. People call others good or bad merely for things they like or don't like. They probably do the same with God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How do you define 'a commandment from G-d'?

Why the change of wording from the term I actually used ("command") to one that I haven't used in this discussion ("commandment")?

I define "command from God" as "something God tells someone to do."

 

[Akivah]

Why the change of wording from the term I actually used ("command") to one that I haven't used in this discussion ("commandment")?

I define "command from God" as "something God tells someone to do."

I used the word ‘commandment’ in my response to your first question and you didn’t dispute it then, so I thought it was what you meant. Just now, I realize that we are talking past each other.

you think that a story where God commands human sacrifice is meant to express that God forbids human sacrifice?

This is where your misunderstanding starts. G-d never commanded human sacrifice in the first place. The text (G e n 22:2) reads that G-d tells Abraham to take his son and bring him up for a burnt offering. It doesn’t say that Abraham must kill his son as a sacrifice to G-d. The command can be understood as Abraham and Isaac together presenting a burnt offering to G-d. “Bring him up” has a very different meaning than “slaughter him”. Note that Abraham never believed that he would really kill his son. He told his servants at verse five that he and Isaac will prostrate themselves and then BOTH return to them. And Abraham was earlier told by G-d that Isaac would be the inheritor of the covenant. Isaac couldn’t do that, if he was dead.

Child sacrifice is regarded with horror throughout the Tanakh. The prophet Micah asks sarcastically “Shall I give my firstborn for my sin?” and replies “G-d has shown you O man what is good. To act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your G-d.” G-d also makes a direct declaration against it in L e v 20:4-5. Abraham could not be a role model to the Jewish people if he did what his descendants are commanded not to do.

The Tanakh is a teaching against pagan beliefs. Child sacrifice was a common practice in those days. Mesha King of Moab did so, as did Jepthat (worst king in book of Judges), and Ahaz and Manasseh were condemned for bringing the practice into Judah.

This test is for Abraham to relate to G-d in a manner to which he was unaccustomed. Abraham always displayed great kindness. By going against his own nature, Abraham developed new skills for the service of G-d. Once Abraham is able to relate to the Judgement of G-d, he passes the test.

The teaching of the full text in context is G-d demonstrating that human sacrifice is forbidden and this teaching is in accordance with the rest of the Tanakh.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I used the word ‘commandment’ in my response to your first question and you didn’t dispute it then, so I thought it was what you meant. Just now, I realize that we are talking past each other.

I've been clear in my posts. I'm not sure why you would take "God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son once in one particular time and place" to mean something like "God commanded everyone everywhere to sacrifice their children on a regular basis forever." -that's all in your head, and IMO has nothing to do with any distinction between "command" and "commandment".

This is where your misunderstanding starts. G-d never commanded human sacrifice in the first place.

Oh, I agree. I think the story is fiction.

The text (G e n 22:2) reads that G-d tells Abraham to take his son and bring him up for a burnt offering. It doesn’t say that Abraham must kill his son as a sacrifice to G-d. The command can be understood as Abraham and Isaac together presenting a burnt offering to G-d.

I'll let you take that up with every Biblical scholar I've ever heard of. They all disagree with you.

“Bring him up” has a very different meaning than “slaughter him”.

I'm not sure what translation you're reading, but a quick scan of the more popular ones on Bible Gateway all say something like "offer him up as a burnt offering" or "sacrifice him as a burnt offering."

Note that Abraham never believed that he would really kill his son. He told his servants at verse five that he and Isaac will prostrate themselves and then BOTH return to them.

You've never heard of lying?

And Abraham was earlier told by G-d that Isaac would be the inheritor of the covenant. Isaac couldn’t do that, if he was dead.

After all, it isn't like he believed in a god who was capable of resurrecting his son, right?

Child sacrifice is regarded with horror throughout the Tanakh. The prophet Micah asks sarcastically “Shall I give my firstborn for my sin?” and replies “G-d has shown you O man what is good. To act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your G-d.” G-d also makes a direct declaration against it in L e v 20:4-5. Abraham could not be a role model to the Jewish people if he did what his descendants are commanded not to do.

There are plenty of Jewish commentaries on this story that accept that Abraham was going to kill Isaac before he was stopped.

The Tanakh is a teaching against pagan beliefs. Child sacrifice was a common practice in those days. Mesha King of Moab did so, as did Jepthat (worst king in book of Judges), and Ahaz and Manasseh were condemned for bringing the practice into Judah.

This test is for Abraham to relate to G-d in a manner to which he was unaccustomed. Abraham always displayed great kindness. By going against his own nature, Abraham developed new skills for the service of G-d. Once Abraham is able to relate to the Judgement of G-d, he passes the test.

The teaching of the full text in context is G-d demonstrating that human sacrifice is forbidden and this teaching is in accordance with the rest of the Tanakh.

Sure it is.

Personally, I have no reason to expect that a collection of books written over many hundreds of years would be consistent from beginning to end.

 

[McDoogins]

This is my favorite post ever! I love it - so honest and to the point! That's what everybody here does but no one ever says it.

Thanks bro, I try.

 

[Akivah]

I'll let you take that up with every Biblical scholar I've ever heard of. They all disagree with you.

I guess you didn't read the articles written by rabbis that I used in my answer to you. That's two you missed.

I'm not sure what translation you're reading, but a quick scan of the more popular ones on Bible Gateway all say something like "offer him up as a burnt offering" or "sacrifice him as a burnt offering."

I'm reading from the Hebrew bible. Gateway is a Xian bible. It's different from the Original Text. As is obvious, it's already led you to a false conclusion.

Anyways, I've explained the topic to you. I'm done beating a dead horse. You can have the last word.

 

[Super Universe]

As an atheist many assume that my biggest beef with god is that I don't think he is real. While that has some truth to it, for me, it is just as important if not more so to acknowledge that if god were real, I would think he was a jerk.

And to me that's actually a more tangible thing to argue against theists then the position of him being real or not. In the bible god caused a flood that killed thousands of people, he tested Abraham to kill his son Issac, he takes away everything from Job just to prove a point to Satan.

If god is so good, why didn't he save his chosen people from the holocaust? If god is so good why do life forms have to ingest other life forms to survive? To paraphrase Schopenhauer, compare the feeling of satisfaction of the predator to the agony of the prey. If our species is "so special" to be the only ones to associate with god why are so many animals equipped to kill us in a second notice?

It's these questions that I find to be more interesting then the classic scenarios of, "You can't prove god exists" and the contrasting "You can't prove he doesn't exist."

God does not fit the human definition of good. The reason is because human ideas about God expect God to be subservient to human needs and wants. It's not about you. It never was. It never will be. He created a universe for you and gave you free will, if that is not enough then nothing will ever be good enough for you.

God's central focus, you could call it His brain, also known as heaven, is pure love, but it doesn't just produce pure love. From heaven God produces all personality, good, bad, and everything in between. God wants experiences that He could not otherwise have. If everyone knew without a doubt that God existed, wouldn't that change your actions and thus limit your free will?

The bible does not represent God. It never has. The bible represents ignorant humans attempt to understand something that was and still is far beyond their ability to fully comprehend. Many of the Old Testament stories are not exactly true but they were meant to convey an idea of truth.

The flood was an event that happened in ancient Sumeria, a man cautioned others that the annual flood of the Euphrates River could be larger than expected and everyones homes could be submerged. This man built a unique home that could float and when the river did indeed flood this man brought his animals inside and his home floated and was saved. The story was passed on through oral tradition and eventually written down and, of course, blamed on God because in ancient times every natural event was believed to have been caused by an "angry" God.

Why didn't God save "His" chosen people from the holocaust? Because that would violate the free will of the Nazi's. Free will is a law. God does not create a law and then violate it or change it, that is something humans do.

Why do we have to eat living things? Primitive life forms have to eat to sustain life, advanced life forms do not. Humans still have about another 1,000 years to go.

 

[Koldo]

God does not fit the human definition of good. The reason is because human ideas about God expect God to be subservient to human needs and wants. It's not about you. It never was. It never will be. He created a universe for you and gave you free will, if that is not enough then nothing will ever be good enough for you.

He created the entire freaking universe for me, but it isn't about me...
Yeah, right...

 

[Super Universe]

Must be tough when you can't get your way with God. But why did you think you should?

 

[ether-ore]

God does not fit the human definition of good. The reason is because human ideas about God expect God to be subservient to human needs and wants. It's not about you. It never was. It never will be. He created a universe for you and gave you free will, if that is not enough then nothing will ever be good enough for you.

God's central focus, you could call it His brain, also known as heaven, is pure love, but it doesn't just produce pure love. From heaven God produces all personality, good, bad, and everything in between. God wants experiences that He could not otherwise have. If everyone knew without a doubt that God existed, wouldn't that change your actions and thus limit your free will?

The bible does not represent God. It never has. The bible represents ignorant humans attempt to understand something that was and still is far beyond their ability to fully comprehend. Many of the Old Testament stories are not exactly true but they were meant to convey an idea of truth.

The flood was an event that happened in ancient Sumeria, a man cautioned others that the annual flood of the Euphrates River could be larger than expected and everyones homes could be submerged. This man built a unique home that could float and when the river did indeed flood this man brought his animals inside and his home floated and was saved. The story was passed on through oral tradition and eventually written down and, of course, blamed on God because in ancient times every natural event was believed to have been caused by an "angry" God.

Why didn't God save "His" chosen people from the holocaust? Because that would violate the free will of the Nazi's. Free will is a law. God does not create a law and then violate it or change it, that is something humans do.

Why do we have to eat living things? Primitive life forms have to eat to sustain life, advanced life forms do not. Humans still have about another 1,000 years to go.

Since you are dismissing the Bible as not coming to us from God through many prophets, while at the same time, providing us with information on what God's purposes are... Are you claiming to be a prophet? Did God tell you these things? For me, the Bible is a collection of books from many different prophets who's testimonies are consistent and who corroborate each other, thus giving it credibility. What other witness corroborates your point of view?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I guess you didn't read the articles written by rabbis that I used in my answer to you. That's two you missed.

Well, we can put that on the balance against the mountain of Jewish commentary that accepts that God really did command Abraham to sacrifice his son and then attempts to make sense of it.

I'm reading from the Hebrew bible.

You can read ancient Hebrew. Gateway is a Xian bible. It's different from the Original Text.[/QUOTE]
Every single translation on Bible Gateway is wrong? Interesting.

Why do you think this Jewish source also translates it as "offer him there for a burnt offering"?

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0122.htm

... or this one, which says "offer him there as a burnt offering"?

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/genesis-221-24-the-binding-of-isaac/

... or any of the many other sources that disagree with you?

As is obvious, it's already led you to a false conclusion.

Sure it has. Are you so closed-minded on this issue that you can't even recognize that the other side exists?

Anyways, I've explained the topic to you. I'm done beating a dead horse. You can have the last word.

Fine by me.

 

[Super Universe]

Since you are dismissing the Bible as not coming to us from God through many prophets, while at the same time, providing us with information on what God's purposes are... Are you claiming to be a prophet? Did God tell you these things? For me, the Bible is a collection of books from many different prophets who's testimonies are consistent and who corroborate each other, thus giving it credibility. What other witness corroborates your point of view?

There is some revelation in the books of the bible. Not everything is from God though. I'll give you an example, Exodus 30:12 "When you take the census of the children of Israel for their number, then every man shall give a ransom for himself to the Lord..."

What would God want with money?

God never directed that people pay a ransom on the census. The temple priests were jealous of the richness of the king and expected that, because they represented God, they should be at least as rich as the king so they wrote this into a temple policy book which later was incorporated into Exodus and even later still Exodus was included in the group of books we call the bible. The temple priests also did the same thing for animal sacrifice, writing that it should be "the best of the flock" because the people were bringing in the old and injured or sickly animals to be sacrificed. The temple workers would prepare a small portion of the animal for burnt sacrifice while making food out of the rest. The priests wanted the best animals.

The real hard truth is that much of what is written in the Old Testament books is simply temple policy, culture, and ignorance of natural laws. People now can't tell the difference because they haven't studied history or tribal culture.

Am I claiming to be a prophet? Nope.

Did God tell me these things? Five years of college.

The prophets testimonies are consistent, and thus credible? So you like the angry, vengeful, jealous, idea of God presented in the Old Testament? God created the universe, what could He possibly be jealous of?

You say the bible is a collection of books from many different prophets? No one knows who wrote any book of the bible. The Jews believe that Moses wrote the first five books, perhaps he did. What I would say is this, see the bible as a representation of humans evolving concept of God. Never put the ten commandments on equal par with anything Jesus said. Jesus did not preach the ten commandments, He preached against them.

What other witness corroborates your point of view? So you are a follower. You go with the herd.

 

[viole]

Why didn't God save "His" chosen people from the holocaust? Because that would violate the free will of the Nazi's. Free will is a law. God does not create a law and then violate it or change it, that is something humans do.

The problem is that by doing that He caused the violation of the free will of six million innocents.

Why do we have to eat living things? Primitive life forms have to eat to sustain life, advanced life forms do not. Humans still have about another 1,000 years to go.

Lucky me. To be a primitive form. I am not sure I would be happy to renounce a good BBQ.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Super Universe]

The problem is that by doing that He caused the violation of the free will of six million innocents.

You think that God should control the actions of others so that you can have the life you want.

Not gonna happen.

 

[viole]

You think that God should control the actions of others so that you can have the life you want.

Not gonna happen.

Well, if I were a Jewish child in line to the gas chamber, I might think exactly that.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Super Universe]

Well, if I were a Jewish child in line to the gas chamber, I might think exactly that.

Ciao

- viole

You might, but human thoughts and wishes don't make universal policy.

It always amazes me the ego that you humans have. You really do think that God and the universe should serve you.

Not gonna happen.

 

[viole]

You might, but human thoughts and wishes don't make universal policy.

It always amazes me the ego that you humans have. You really do think that God and the universe should serve you.

Not gonna happen.

Arrogant silly girl in line for the gas chamber. Who does she think she is?

By the way, what do you mean with "you humans". You are not human?

Ciao

- viole