Why I think a lot of the Bible is False

[Yid613]

Honestly, you can't get over the fact that I just happen to not believe you're real because you've placed me on this Earth with NOTHING substantial to go on?

But even when the Temple stood and you could see G-d in person, in a time when miracles were a daily event people still sinned. Tricks were never enough it’s all about the truth in want he wrote.

The killing of the firstborn was justice, as the Egyptians had also killed all the Hebrew male babies. The eye-for-an-eye thing that was prominent in the Hebrew culture at the time. (doesn't mean I like or agree with it any more than you do. But what would you want to do if you ruled over a land and someone enslaved your people and killed all their male children?)

Does this mean that the crucifixion of Christ could be seen as divinely just, in an eye-for-an-eye, Old Testament sort of way?

Eye for an eye means that justice must be done and the punishment must be fitting for the crime. The damage done must be mitigated and further damage prevented. Punishment must not be out of retribution or revenge. It does not allow the victim to commit the same crime against the criminal. This is the bases of modern civil law.

 

[Riverwolf]

So if someone kills your child, the just thing to do is to kill his child, in your opinion? And if someone's king kills your child, then the just thing to do is to kill all the children born in that kingdom?

I said that I didn't like it any more that you do, just that it was "justice" to Yeh'vah. (not to me) If someone killed my child, I would certainly want revenge, but if, fate willing, I were to maintain myself, I would find it in myself to forgive the person. If someone's king ordered the slaughtering of my children, I would want revenge against said king, yes, but against the king, not his people nor his offspring. But would I do anything? Well, if I lost myself, you bet.

In my personal beliefs, the gods are just as capable of mistakes as we are, and are young once and grow and mature as well. They are not immune to time in my beliefs.

But is it right to hold a grudge for something that happened thousands of years ago?

 

[Riverwolf]

So...

- The Egyptians kill the Hebrews' first-born sons.
- As an act of divine justice, God kills the Egyptians' first-born sons.
- Later on, the Romans kill God's first-born Son.

Does this mean that the crucifixion of Christ could be seen as divinely just, in an eye-for-an-eye, Old Testament sort of way?

No, because the eye-for-an-eye thing only works once, ideally. Not to mention the Romans had nothing to do with the Egyptians. Neither by the way was it all the Romans who crucified Yeshua; the Jewish priests at the time persuaded Pilate, the local governor, to crucify him. So it was "a" Roman who ordered the crucifixion of Yeshua, but not "the" Romans. (I just got done reading Luke and Acts, so it's still fresh in my mind what was going on.)

 

[Riverwolf]

And that makes it O.K. for GOD?

No; see above.

Just a hunch? A feeling? Is that how you decide which parts to believe?

Well, in this topic, what else is there to go on, really? Not a lot of written records survived to this day.

Besides, don't forget, Auto, that I am PAGAN. I don't "believe" any of the Bible; I only follow certain aspects of it so as to better myself in this life. Not to mention some of the stories in the Old Testament are pretty good, and the poetry is beautiful.

I was speaking from the viewpoint of an Abrahamist, as I call someone who follows one of the Abrahamic faiths.

 

[Scott1]

And how do you decide which ones to believe and which ones not?

The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it:

1. Be especially attentive "to the content and unity of the whole Scripture"
2. Read the Scripture within "the living Tradition of the whole Church".
3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith

 

[Autodidact]

If one see the essence of a person as their physical self then death is a horrible thing. However if one sees the essence of a person as their soul and the physical body only as temporary vessel then death is just a transition. Therefore if the actions of the physical body or circumstances the physical body finds itself in are causing damage to the soul a transition, through death, may be desirable whether it be to another body or a more spiritual existence.

May I say that this is one of the most horrific, abominable, callous and disgusting posts that I have ever read on any message board anywhere? However, since you feel that way, would you mind if we facilitated your transition to either another body or a more spiritual existence, as you prefer? Does this apply to babies as well?

btw, none of this is actually in the Tanakh anywhere, where it makes it quite clear that G-D is ordering the deaths of babies and toddlers solely to make room for the Hebrews to occupy the land where they are living. There is no mention of any need to transition to any other plane, or any motivation other than genocidal ethnic cleansing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, because the eye-for-an-eye thing only works once, ideally.

Why's that?

Not to mention the Romans had nothing to do with the Egyptians.

Just as God didn't have anything in particular to do with the Egyptians either.

Neither by the way was it all the Romans who crucified Yeshua; the Jewish priests at the time persuaded Pilate, the local governor, to crucify him. So it was "a" Roman who ordered the crucifixion of Yeshua, but not "the" Romans. (I just got done reading Luke and Acts, so it's still fresh in my mind what was going on.)

I wasn't thinking just of Pilate, but also the Roman soldiers who jailed Jesus, the soldiers who nailed Him to the cross, and the soldiers who stood watch until He died. All of them played a role in the execution, didn't they?

In any event, the mechanism of the "justice" isn't really the issue. It really boils down to this:

- the Egyptians kill the Hebrew first-born sons, so the Egyptians' own first-born sons are killed. An eye for an eye.
- God kills the Egyptian first-born sons, so God's first-born son is killed. An eye for an eye.

No?

 

[Riverwolf]

Why's that?

Yid explains it pretty well above.

Just as God didn't have anything in particular to do with the Egyptians either.

Yeah he did. The Egyptians had enslaved his people and treated them like trash, literally.

I wasn't thinking just of Pilate, but also the Roman soldiers who jailed Jesus, the soldiers who nailed Him to the cross, and the soldiers who stood watch until He died. All of them played a role in the execution, didn't they?

In any event, the mechanism of the "justice" isn't really the issue. It really boils down to this:

- the Egyptians kill the Hebrew first-born sons, so the Egyptians' own first-born sons are killed. An eye for an eye.
- God kills the Egyptian first-born sons, so God's first-born son is killed. An eye for an eye.

No?

No. The Roman soldiers who did all that were simply following their orders. "Father, forgive them, for they no not what they do." And as I said before, the Romans had nothing to do with Yeh'vah; the Egyptians had enslaved his people. Ever see Prince of Egypt?

 

[Yid613]

May I say that this is one of the most horrific, abominable, callous and disgusting posts that I have ever read on any message board anywhere?

I’m sorry you found my post offensive .

Due to our limited vision we see death as final as such we see it as horrible, as I said in my previous post. But if one believes in an omnipotent G-d then it follows that He is benevolent. He ordered people killed so there seems to be a contradiction. Most apparent contradictions in the Bible are due to our lack of understanding. We do not see things as G-d does. Only He knows the true result of death.

However, since you feel that way, would you mind if we facilitated your transition to either another body or a more spiritual existence, as you prefer?

As we do not have G-d’s vision or knowledge we are not permitted to play god. We are not permitted to murder.

 

[Autodidact]

I’m sorry you found my post offensive .

Yeah, I have this weird distaste for murder, especially infanticide.

Due to our limited vision we see death as final as such we see it as horrible, as I said in my previous post. But if one believes in an omnipotent G-d then it follows that He is benevolent. He ordered people killed so there seems to be a contradiction. Most apparent contradictions in the Bible are due to our lack of understanding. We do not see things as G-d does. Only He knows the true result of death.

And this is why religious people can be dangerous.

As we do not have G-d’s vision or knowledge we are not permitted to play god. We are not permitted to murder.

But we are permitted to kill, as long as we manage to persuade ourselves that G-d has commanded us to do so. Thus, if the Tanakh is to be believed, our ancestors murdered thousands of innocent babies and children, and captured and enslaved young women, all in the name of the G-d you worship. Barbaric and horrific.

 

[Storm]

But if one believes in an omnipotent G-d then it follows that He is benevolent.

No it doesn't.

 

[Riverwolf]

Yeah, I have this weird distaste for murder, especially infanticide.

You and me, both, Auto.

And this is why religious people can be dangerous.

I'd like to stress the CAN BE part for her, because it's true. That's why I believe there needs to be some sort of balancing and regulation, that is, separation of Church and State.

But we are permitted to kill, as long as we manage to persuade ourselves that G-d has commanded us to do so. Thus, if the Tanakh is to be believed, our ancestors murdered thousands of innocent babies and children, and captured and enslaved young women, all in the name of the G-d you worship. Barbaric and horrific.

Very barbaric, but also ancient history. Don't forget that.

BTY, Yeh'vah according to Joshua ordered the Hebrews to kill the young women as well, so any time they captured them, they were disobeying.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

BTY, Yeh'vah according ...

Who the hell is Yeh'vah?

 

[Riverwolf]

Who the hell is Yeh'vah?

Sorry. There was an example of assuming being inappropriate.

Yeh'vah is how I read YHVH, or YHWH. The reason I say "Yeh'vah" and not "Yahweh" or one of the other more accepted ones is for a few reasons.

One reason is because of the family name. "Yeshua, son of Yeh'vah," as it were. The apostrophe is to indicate the accent is on both syllables. Another reason is because the letter "w" is more like a "double-vee," so I assume in the Latin alphabet there is no "w." (I don't know for sure, though.) I also assume there's no "y" but I use one instead so as to indicate the pronunciation being "Yeh" and not "Ee-yeh."

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yeh'vah is how I read YHVH, or YHWH. The reason I say "Yeh'vah" and not "Yahweh" or one of the other more accepted ones is for a few reasons.

One reason is because of the family name. "Yeshua, son of Yeh'vah," as it were. The apostrophe is to indicate the accent is on both syllables. Another reason is because the letter "w" is more like a "double-vee," so I assume in the Latin alphabet there is no "w." (I don't know for sure, though.) I also assume there's no "y" but I use one instead so as to indicate the pronunciation being "Yeh" and not "Ee-yeh."

So many baseless assumptions! But, if it makes you feel better ...

 

[Yid613]

And this is why religious people can be dangerous.

Unlike Atheists who gave us euthanasia, eugenics, racial purity and their share of genocide. There is no shortage of bad people in all walks of life.

Originally Posted by Yid613
But if one believes in an omnipotent G-d then it follows that He is benevolent.

No it doesn't

Yes it does


Kindness is about giving. We speak of giving charity or providing for the poor. The opposite of kindness is strict justice, justice not tempered by kindness, this is restrictive. We speak of taking away freedom or limiting rights.

When one has, it’s easy to give. It is very easy for one who has more money then he knows what to do with to give charity. Evil people take (steal, murder, . . . ). As the physical world is a reflection of the spiritual world then how can G-d who has everything be anything other than benevolent? If he has everything what is there for him to take he can only give.

When G-d act in the manner of kindness we speak of receiving a blessing. When He acts in the manner of justice we speak in terms of Him removing His presents or of being in exile. But His justice is always tempered by kindness He may limit His presents, reduce that which he gives, but not completely remove it.

The first line of the Torah says, "In the beginning of G-d’s creating". Creating as an ongoing action, He continually creates the world. This is an ongoing act of kindness.

Intellectually this is all find and good but when it becomes personal (G-d forbid) it becomes a matter of faith. A belief that G-d knows what He is doing.

 

[Riverwolf]

So many baseless assumptions! But, if it makes you feel better ...

Exactly. For one as lazy as myself, baseless assumptions are the way to go... until I actually feel like looking them up.

 

[Yid613]

Yeh'vah is how I read YHVH, or YHWH. The reason I say "Yeh'vah" and not "Yahweh" or one of the other more accepted ones is for a few reasons.

While it is a name it’s more of an acronym. Doesn’t really make sense trying to pronounce.

 

[Riverwolf]

While it is a name it’s more of an acronym. Doesn’t really make sense trying to pronounce.

Yeah, I know. No one but the Big Guy himself knows how it's really pronounced, and it is blasphemous to speak the name aloud.

However, I am not of those faiths, thus I'm already damned to Hell, so I shall write the full name as I see it and speak it as such. It doesn't mean I say for sure that, that is how the name is spelled or pronounced; just how I read it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

While it is a name it’s more of an acronym.

For what?