The God of the Bible Doesn't Exist

[Doubting John]

One thing is sure to me. The God in the Bible simply cannot be describing the God that exists. That God is a hateful, racist and sexist God. Consider the following things: In the Flood story we’re told God wanted to destroy all mankind. In Moses’ day God wanted to destroy all of the Israelites. In Joshua’s day God wanted the Israelites to kill all of the inhabitants of the Promised Land. Saul was told by God to destroy all of the Amalekites. According to Jonah, God was going to destroy the people of Nineveh. God also destroyed and scattered the northern tribes of Israel because he was displeased with them. God allowed the accuser to destroy Job’s health and family life just to win a “bet.” In the New Testament, God will destroy all unbelievers in the lake of fire. He’s a pretty barbaric God, if you ask me. This God is simply the reflection of ancient barbaric peoples.

Ludwig Feuerbach is surely right, God did not make us in his image, human beings made God in their image. Specifically, the ancient people of the Bible constructed their views of God based upon their own barbaric nature.

God decreed that a man who picked up sticks on the Sabbath day was to be stoned to death (Numbers 15:32-36). God commanded that anyone who curses his father or mother was to be put to death (Exodus 21:17). Witches, and those of differing religious views were to be killed (Ex. 22:18,20). These are pretty stiff punishments, eh? This God declares that a slave is the property of another man (Exodus 21:21). God commanded men to divorce their foreign wives for no other reason but that they were not God’s people (Ezra 9), and women were helpless if they weren’t married in those days.

God asked Abraham to kill and sacrifice his son Isaac. If we heard a voice today telling us to do that, we would not think this voice was God’s, although Abraham wasn’t horrified at the suggestion. Enough for now. But example like these are plenty.

[Meh_Gerbil]

One thing is sure to me. The God in the Bible simply cannot be describing the God that exists. That God is a hateful, racist and sexist God. Consider the following things: In the Flood story we’re told God wanted to destroy all mankind. In Moses’ day God wanted to destroy all of the Israelites. In Joshua’s day God wanted the Israelites to kill all of the inhabitants of the Promised Land. Saul was told by God to destroy all of the Amalekites. According to Jonah, God was going to destroy the people of Nineveh. God also destroyed and scattered the northern tribes of Israel because he was displeased with them. God allowed the accuser to destroy Job’s health and family life just to win a “bet.” In the New Testament, God will destroy all unbelievers in the lake of fire. He’s a pretty barbaric God, if you ask me. This God is simply the reflection of ancient barbaric peoples.

Ludwig Feuerbach is surely right, God did not make us in his image, human beings made God in their image. Specifically, the ancient people of the Bible constructed their views of God based upon their own barbaric nature.

God decreed that a man who picked up sticks on the Sabbath day was to be stoned to death (Numbers 15:32-36). God commanded that anyone who curses his father or mother was to be put to death (Exodus 21:17). Witches, and those of differing religious views were to be killed (Ex. 22:18,20). These are pretty stiff punishments, eh? This God declares that a slave is the property of another man (Exodus 21:21). God commanded men to divorce their foreign wives for no other reason but that they were not God’s people (Ezra 9), and women were helpless if they weren’t married in those days.

God asked Abraham to kill and sacrifice his son Isaac. If we heard a voice today telling us to do that, we would not think this voice was God’s, although Abraham wasn’t horrified at the suggestion. Enough for now. But example like these are plenty.

That's odd, I just spoke with Him this morning. (1)















-------------------------------
NOTES:
1: I try to keep my apologetics on par with the audience to which I'm speaking.

[Hitch]

One thing is sure to me. The God in the Bible simply cannot be describing the God that exists. That God is a hateful, racist and sexist God. Consider the following things: In the Flood story we’re told God wanted to destroy all mankind. In Moses’ day God wanted to destroy all of the Israelites. In Joshua’s day God wanted the Israelites to kill all of the inhabitants of the Promised Land. Saul was told by God to destroy all of the Amalekites. According to Jonah, God was going to destroy the people of Nineveh. God also destroyed and scattered the northern tribes of Israel because he was displeased with them. God allowed the accuser to destroy Job’s health and family life just to win a “bet.” In the New Testament, God will destroy all unbelievers in the lake of fire. He’s a pretty barbaric God, if you ask me. This God is simply the reflection of ancient barbaric peoples.

Ludwig Feuerbach is surely right, God did not make us in his image, human beings made God in their image. Specifically, the ancient people of the Bible constructed their views of God based upon their own barbaric nature.

God decreed that a man who picked up sticks on the Sabbath day was to be stoned to death (Numbers 15:32-36). God commanded that anyone who curses his father or mother was to be put to death (Exodus 21:17). Witches, and those of differing religious views were to be killed (Ex. 22:18,20). These are pretty stiff punishments, eh? This God declares that a slave is the property of another man (Exodus 21:21). God commanded men to divorce their foreign wives for no other reason but that they were not God’s people (Ezra 9), and women were helpless if they weren’t married in those days.

God asked Abraham to kill and sacrifice his son Isaac. If we heard a voice today telling us to do that, we would not think this voice was God’s, although Abraham wasn’t horrified at the suggestion. Enough for now. But example like these are plenty.
WOW! What a new and exciting idea. No one has ever thought of making God in his own image before...

[Meh_Gerbil]

God asked Abraham to kill and sacrifice his son Isaac. If we heard a voice today telling us to do that, we would not think this voice was God’s, although Abraham wasn’t horrified at the suggestion. Enough for now. But example like these are plenty.

I'd like to speak to this for a moment:

We currently live in a culture that sacrifices its own children on a daily basis, not only before they are born, but also well after they are born. These children are primarily sacrificed for convenience or material gain.

In the Abrahamic example, the child wasn't actually sacrificed whereas materialist actually follow through.

This objection of yours would be funny if it wasn't so tragically hypocritical and shallow.

[Doubting John]

Did God want Abraham to sacrifice Isaac or not? He told him to, or so we are told. Yes or no?

Yes? Then he's a barbaric God.

No? Then he lied.

God was testing Abraham? By telling Abraham to do something that he didn't want Abraham to do? Why would God do that? Such a command could only be understood within a culture where such things are at least acceptable. In our culture it isn't. It's reprehensible. Abraham was a child of his times too. And just like pentecostals today hear voices in their heads claiming to be from God, Abraham thought he heard God telling him to do what was acceptable in his day and time.

We "sacrifice" children today? Not among respectable civilized people. Civilized people would condemn such things if they knew they were taking place in some remote place like Africa.

Is abortion child sacrifice? To which God are these people asking for favors when they do so? It's simply foolish to claim that the worship of Molech and the accompanying priesthood and temples are in any way shape of form equivalent to an individual in a democratic society doing what that society allows by law by having an abortion for the convenience of their own lives. Most all of the people who get abortions do not say to the god of their choice, "I now sacrifice this child to you to gain your blessings."

Did God foreknow what Abraham would do? Then why bother.

This God of the Bible conforms to the thoughts and ideas of the people of that day. We are all children of our times.

[Luffy]

I'd like to speak to this for a moment:
We currently live in a culture that sacrifices its own children on a daily basis, not only before they are born, but also well after they are born. These children are primarily sacrificed for convenience or material gain.
The comparison between a living, breathing, thinking child and an early embryo is invalid. I will never understand how anybody can possibly imagine it to be otherwise. Unless they have some bizarro ideological reason for holding onto such a view... hmm.

As for sacrificing children after birth... whaaa?

[FirstSunday33ad]

I take it you haven't really done much research on the Ancient Near East? If you had you would have found that none of what you write is all the "shocking".

One thing is sure to me. The God in the Bible simply cannot be describing the God that exists. That God is a hateful, racist and sexist God. Consider the following things:

Only by our modern standards can an accusation be made that God in the Bible is depicted as "hateful, racist or sexist". To back up those charges, you will have to show the verses that show God hurting or having someone be hurt because He hates him, or is of a different race. To prove sexism you will also have to show the proscriptions for women were unjust or unfairly applied and that the sole reason they were applied was because of their gender.

In the Flood story we’re told God wanted to destroy all mankind.

We are also told why God wanted to destroy all mankind except Noah

In Moses’ day God wanted to destroy all of the Israelites.

Actually He stated that the Israelites were deserving of destruction but allowed Moses to plead their case. The event was a lesson for the Israelites.

In Joshua’s day God wanted the Israelites to kill all of the inhabitants of the Promised Land.

Can you please provide the chapter and verse supporting the claim "all the inhabitants of the Promised Land"? If Joshua had been told to destroy them and didn't, he wouldn't have had the career that he did.

Saul was told by God to destroy all of the Amalekites.

Who had it coming

According to Jonah, God was going to destroy the people of Nineveh.

IF they did not repent. They did, so He didn't.

God also destroyed and scattered the northern tribes of Israel because he was displeased with them.

Yeah, they were worshipping false gods in violation of the covenant and in full knowledge of what this would bring.

God allowed the accuser to destroy Job’s health and family life just to win a “bet.”

This is a story like Esther and never happened. You want to fault someone blame the author not God.

In the New Testament, God will destroy all unbelievers in the lake of fire.

Allegorical imagery from Revelations; surely you don't think Revelations is to be read literally?

He’s a pretty barbaric God, if you ask me. This God is simply the reflection of ancient barbaric peoples.

Again, by modern standards only can it be said that the ancients were barbaric. They followed a pattern of behavior that given their circumstances could also be seen as compassionate. To judge a people to whom death and dissolution were everyday occurances by our yardstick of acceptable or right, is unfair at the least and bigoted at the extreme.

God decreed that a man who picked up sticks on the Sabbath day was to be stoned to death (Numbers 15:32-36).

No, God decreed that anyone who worked on the Sabbath was to be put to death.

God commanded that anyone who curses his father or mother was to be put to death (Exodus 21:17).

Yep. Because in a social communal society where families were the source of survival such an act, left unpunished would result in the destruction of the society itself.

Neo-Babylonian Law Code:

If a son say to his father "You are not my father" the father shall cut off the son's locks, make him a slave and sell him for money.

Code of Hammarbi:

If a son of a paramour or a prostitute say to his adoptive father or mother: "You are not my father, or my mother," his tongue shall be cut off.

If a son strike his father, his hands shall be hewn off.

Witches, and those of differing religious views were to be killed (Ex. 22:18,20).

As they were in every other society of the time and place.

These are pretty stiff punishments, eh?

They had to be given what an ancient society was up against.

This God declares that a slave is the property of another man (Exodus 21:21).

A slave was the property of another man, what is so special about this?

God commanded men to divorce their foreign wives for no other reason but that they were not God’s people (Ezra 9),

And of course because they introduced false gods and foreign religious practices into the household which was the cause of Israel's problems in the first place.

and women were helpless if they weren’t married in those days.

uh...yeah, they were and how was this God's fault?

God asked Abraham to kill and sacrifice his son Isaac.

Lesson of leadership and sacrifice, foreshadowing Christ sacrifice for us.

If we heard a voice today telling us to do that, we would not think this voice was God’s, although Abraham wasn’t horrified at the suggestion. Enough for now. But example like these are plenty.

Yes. TODAY we would...because TODAY we would have reason to doubt it. Christ's sacrifice is all inclusive, such an action today would be unnecessary. In Abraham's day, it wasn't.

Please do your homework before posting anymore examples such as the above.

Thank you.

[FirstSunday33ad]

Did God want Abraham to sacrifice Isaac or not? He told him to, or so we are told. Yes or no?

Yes? Then he's a barbaric God.

No? Then he lied.

False dilemma.

God was testing Abraham? By telling Abraham to do something that he didn't want Abraham to do? Why would God do that?

I take exception also to the idea that this was test of Abraham's faith. The command was a lesson, not just for Abraham but for Israel and mankind as well. That which we love and cherish can be taken from us in a moment. To cling to or to worship the things of this life is foolish.

Abraham cherished Isaac, so much so that he was in danger of losing his perspective and his obedience to God. The command snapped him back to reality. Isaac could die; he was mortal he would die someday. His existance was not what was the most important element in Abraham life; his faith and obedience to God was.

On another level, the command illustrated in clear terms the decision God would make with His own Son Jesus. Jesus would one day be sacrificed for the salvation of the world. Where God stayed Abraham's hand on the alter, He would not stay the hand of the wicked in destroying the life of His Son. The sacrifice Abraham was prepared to make out of his love for God, God would make for us out of His love for humanity.

Such a command could only be understood within a culture where such things are at least acceptable. In our culture it isn't. It's reprehensible. Abraham was a child of his times too. And just like pentecostals today hear voices in their heads claiming to be from God, Abraham thought he heard God telling him to do what was acceptable in his day and time.

Actually human sacrifice was not that common in the ANE and child sacrifice was practiced only by the Canaanites of the region - of whom the Amalikytes were part. The sacrificing of your own child was considered especially horrific and was done only in times of extreme national emergency.

We "sacrifice" children today? Not among respectable civilized people. Civilized people would condemn such things if they knew they were taking place in some remote place like Africa.

Uh...you obviously have never heard of child soldiers being used as human shields for adult fighters have you? It happens not only in Africa but in the Middle East by the Palestinians - who are considered 'heros' by 'civilized' people in Europe and even the U.S.

[Furor]

John, is morality determined by intent or result?

[Doubting John]

I teach ethics classes and I'll tell you that it does not matter whether morality is determined by the intent or the result when it comes to the things attributed in the Bible about God.

Quote:
Again, by modern standards only can it be said that the ancients were barbaric. They followed a pattern of behavior that given their circumstances could also be seen as compassionate. To judge a people to whom death and dissolution were everyday occurances by our yardstick of acceptable or right, is unfair at the least and bigoted at the extreme.


Hmmm. Are you a cultural relativist? Is morality determined by the culture? If so, then can we ever judge another culture, such as militant Muslim ones, as doing anything wrong? If not, then I can judge those ancient cultures and militant Muslims as doing wrong. In the case of ancient Biblical culture, such things were even santioned by their God.

But then, you could say that today's Muslims are better than ancient Muslims, I suppose. Well, go ahead, if you want to. But you're not saying anything by doing so. Better? I want to know if what they do is morally right, period. As a moral absolutist I believe that morality has never changed. So I judge the past barbaric cultures as doing moral wrong: genocide, child sacrifice, and killing of those people who have a different religion is doing something reprehensible, stupid, and horrific. And since such things were sanctioned by "God" in the Bible, and since they are absolutely wrong, then the God of the Bible doesn't exist. It is clearly a god of their own barbaric understanding.

This doesn't mean I do not believe in God, either. I just don't think the Bible's depiction of him is of the true God, if he exists.

To say that God commanded such things to keep some Jewish bloodline pure for the Messiah, presupposes that Jesus is God, which I seriously doubt (see the thread and my post in: "Those Who Believe Jesus is God??"), and that Jesus atoned for our sins on the cross, which I seriously doubt (see the thread: "Why Did Jesus Suffer?").

Regardless, will anyone say that it is morally justifiable under any circumstances to kill people who are gay, or who frequent stip joints, or who get divorced, or curse their parents, or who get drunk, or who worship a different god? Kill them? Boy, that's no different from militant Muslims, and we're fighting them now.

If you think the Militant Muslims are wrong for wanting to kill us, then the only difference between them and your Christian Biblical God is that you merely disagree on who should be killed--but those we think should be killed should be killed.

[Furor]

I teach ethics classes and I'll tell you that it does not matter whether morality is determined by the intent or the result when it comes to the things attributed in the Bible about God.
That's a pretty bold statement. What makes you say that?

I only ask because, in the example of Abraham and Isaac, since Isaac's death is neither the intent nor the result, I am not sure exactly what has you in such a lather.

[grubbcm]

God as described in the bible has authority over life and death. As such he has the moral scope to decide the who, how and when people should die. You seem to be coming from a "if you or I did X it would be abominable" perspective that is simply not transferrable to God as he is described in the bible.

Essentially your argument "God can't be the God of the bible due to violation of standard X" doesn't work, because your standard doesn't apply to God.


God asked Abraham to kill and sacrifice his son Isaac. If we heard a voice today telling us to do that, we would not think this voice was God’s, although Abraham wasn’t horrified at the suggestion. Enough for now. But example like these are plenty.


There's nothing to indicate that Abraham thought this was normal or that he was particularly happy about it. All we are given is an account of the instruction given and his obedience to it.

Also contrary to your suggestion, I believe if God chose to command you to do something as important as what he asked of Abraham, you'd _know_ it was him, regardless of what was said. I also doubt that you have met anyone that has as close a relationship with God as Abraham has (has, not had intentional). The reason you may not attribute the voice to God (when it is God) is that you don't recognise his voice (as Abraham would have).

[jason]

One thing is sure to me. The God in the Bible simply cannot be describing the God that exists. That God is a hateful, racist and sexist God.
Well you have demonstrated your familiarity with the usual vacuous nonsense.

:thumb:

Keep it up, you too can aspire to the ranks of comical irrelevance the way so many others around here do.

Jason

[jason]

Such a command could only be understood within a culture where such things are at least acceptable. In our culture it isn't.
As already pointed out to you that assertion is false. Child sacrifice is endorsed wholesale in the modern west.

Children are routinely ripped for their mothers wombs because they are in the way. Children born with correctable defects are killed because they would be a burden. The elderly routinely abandoned and the disabled starved and dehydrated because there life is not worth living or they are a burden.

Not acceptable, human sacrifice is slowly becoming a requirement.

Your foolish ignorant statements not with standing.

Jason

[shunyadragon]

I'd like to speak to this for a moment:

We currently live in a culture that sacrifices its own children on a daily basis, not only before they are born, but also well after they are born. These children are primarily sacrificed for convenience or material gain.

In the Abrahamic example, the child wasn't actually sacrificed whereas materialist actually follow through.

This objection of yours would be funny if it wasn't so tragically hypocritical and shallow.

I do not support abortion, but I think it is hypocrytical and shallow to compare the human frailty of peoples decisions concerning abortion and other issues with God's actions and orders in the OT. God is an omnipotent, all-powerful being and can do whatever God choses. People on the other hand are faliable and prown to make bad sometimes very bad decisions.

[shunyadragon]

As already pointed out to you that assertion is false. Child sacrifice is endorsed wholesale in the modern west.

Children are routinely ripped for their mothers wombs because they are in the way. Children born with correctable defects are killed because they would be a burden. The elderly routinely abandoned and the disabled starved and dehydrated because there life is not worth living or they are a burden.

Not acceptable, human sacrifice is slowly becoming a requirement.

Your foolish ignorant statements not with standing.

Jason

As with Mad Gabriel it is you to making foolish ignorant statements comparing faliable humans to an omnipotent all-powerful being that makes the rules. Since when did the sins, actions and decisions of humans have anything to do with God's.

[markporter]

I really think you're stretching your claims to be an 'honest doubter' a bit thin here

[Higon]

This God of the Bible conforms to the thoughts and ideas of the people of that day. We are all children of our times.

While applying modern standards to the ANE context, aren´t you the one who are trying to make God conform to the thoughts and ideas of your time?

[FirstSunday33ad]

Hmmm. Are you a cultural relativist? Is morality determined by the culture? If so, then can we ever judge another culture, such as militant Muslim ones, as doing anything wrong? If not, then I can judge those ancient cultures and militant Muslims as doing wrong. In the case of ancient Biblical culture, such things were even sanctioned by their God.

But then, you could say that today's Muslims are better than ancient Muslims, I suppose. Well, go ahead, if you want to. But you're not saying anything by doing so. Better? I want to know if what they do is morally right, period. As a moral absolutist I believe that morality has never changed. So I judge the past barbaric cultures as doing moral wrong: genocide, child sacrifice, and killing of those people who have a different religion is doing something reprehensible, stupid, and horrific. And since such things were sanctioned by "God" in the Bible, and since they are absolutely wrong, then the God of the Bible doesn't exist. It is clearly a god of their own barbaric understanding.

This doesn't mean I do not believe in God, either. I just don't think the Bible's depiction of him is of the true God, if he exists.


To say that God commanded such things to keep some Jewish bloodline pure for the Messiah, presupposes that Jesus is God, which I seriously doubt (see the thread and my post in: "Those Who Believe Jesus is God??"), and that Jesus atoned for our sins on the cross, which I seriously doubt (see the thread: "Why Did Jesus Suffer?").

Regardless, will anyone say that it is morally justifiable under any circumstances to kill people who are gay, or who frequent stip joints, or who get divorced, or curse their parents, or who get drunk, or who worship a different god? Kill them? Boy, that's no different from militant Muslims, and we're fighting them now.

If you think the Militant Muslims are wrong for wanting to kill us, then the only difference between them and your Christian Biblical God is that you merely disagree on who should be killed--but those we think should be killed should be killed.

Quite a bit of well poisoning going on here; well never-mind.

Firstly, I want to address your statement:

To say that God commanded such things to keep some Jewish bloodline pure for the Messiah, presupposes that Jesus is God, which I seriously doubt (see the thread and my post in: "Those Who Believe Jesus is God??"), and that Jesus atoned for our sins on the cross, which I seriously doubt (see the thread: "Why Did Jesus Suffer?").

This has the effect of making the entire argument irrelevant. If Jesus is not God and if He did not atone for our sins on the cross, then the God of the Bible does not exist and therefore calling Him barbaric is pointless. What you really mean to say is that the ancient Hebrews were barbaric. That is an entirely different argument from the one you made in your OP.

So in order to continue to reply in this thread we must proceed with the assumption that the God of the Bible does exist and that what He called on the Hebrews to do was in fact moral.

Secondly, you ask:

? Is morality determined by the culture? If so, then can we ever judge another culture, such as militant Muslim ones, as doing anything wrong? If not, then I can judge those ancient cultures and militant Muslims as doing wrong.

No, morality is not determined by culture, but ethics are determined by time, place and circumstances. To borrow from Plato; theft is immoral – if a man gives you his sword and later asks for it back it is immoral to refuse. However, if you know that this man intends on doing himself some harm it might be moral to return it but it is certainly unethical.

In the case of the militant Muslims, if they could show that by blowing up civilian men, women & children, regardless of age, place or faith was in fact the only way to accomplish some good far greater by comparison, then it could not be said that what they were doing was wrong. But the facts are against them in this endeavor. Their own Holy Book - the Qu’ran – condemns what they are doing; Muslims are expressly forbidden to kill women, children or fellow Muslims. Further, given the scale and style of the acts, a corresponding good would have to be of such an enormous quality that it is unlikely to be found.

In the case of the Amalikytes; can you tell me that the Amalikyte culture posed no clear and present danger to the Hebrew’s survival? Can you show that their continued existence would not result in the destruction of the only slender thread for salvation for the race of humans – past, present and future?

Further you make no difference between murder and execution or killing in combat. Can you say that execution of a criminal is immoral? What about killing during war? We dropped bombs on Germany and Japan during the Second World War, killing thousands of men, women and children; was this immoral or unethical?

As for your concluding remarks:

Regardless, will anyone say that it is morally justifiable under any circumstances to kill people who are gay, or who frequent strip joints, or who get divorced, or curse their parents, or who get drunk, or who worship a different god? Kill them? Boy, that's no different from militant Muslims, and we're fighting them now.

If you think the Militant Muslims are wrong for wanting to kill us, then the only difference between them and your Christian Biblical God is that you merely disagree on who should be killed--but those we think should be killed should be killed

You surely are not comparing the requirements of an ancient society with that of a modern one are you? You do recall that the covenant between man and God changed with the sacrifice of Christ and that the Law became obsolete? The actions you described are still immoral and punishable under the Law, but it is nolonger necessary that those who do them be physically removed from society or put to death for doing them. That is the meaning behind Christ’s words on the cross “It is finished”.

[Doubting John]

Mark Porter: Why is it that you think "honest doubt" is a stretch? See my post in the thread: "What the heck is 'dishonest' doubt anyway."

This thread is moving in the direction of a critique of the divine command theory of ethics. That is, since God is God, then whatever he does or commands is right because he commands it. I may start a thread about this, but for now think on these things:

Is God Good?

To say someone is good is to say that they act in ways that are good; that is, they behave according to some standard of goodness. But since your God sets the standards for goodness in the first place, then how can you ever say that God is good? You can only say that God is.....well.....God. You cannot say he's good!

But if there is a standard that God himself must abide by that he didn't set himself, then and only then can we call him good...if he acts according to that standard. But then you find yourself in another problem, because you'd have to ask who set this standard for God to abide by, and so on, and so on.

I say that if God appeared to me and told me to sacrifice my son, and I initially knew without a doubt that it was in fact God commanding me to do this, I would refuse simply because murder of innocents is wrong, especially by their father. Of course, since I'm so convinced of that ethic, even though I had previously been convinced it was God doing the commanding, I would subsequently reject my initial impression and deny that it was God doing the commanding. I would change my mind at that point and believe instead that I was being deceived into thinking this was God. I dare say you would too!

Besides, I would never think that telling a father to kill his son could in any stretch be ethical, even if you put a gun to his head just to test him to see if he really would do it, and even if in fact you would say to him before he pulled the trigger, "I was just testing you." How would you feel about such a test? It's reprehensible and immoral, even if there is no gun to his head and you promised him good things if he did it. Immoral tests like that are just that--immoral. And the Bible says God did that? Horrible, absolutely horrible. The only reason Abraham didn't vehemently rejected it outright is because he lived among people who weren't horrified by the prospect of doing so. He was a child of his times; he heard voices in his head; he told people he heard God speaking to him; by chance he saw a Ram; he heard another voice in his head; and Isaac praised God-------for the luck of it all.

God cannot behave in ways that he forbids us to behave unless he operates by a different ethical standard, which we call hypocritical and immoral. Of course, he may be able to fly and read our minds--things we cannot do--because he can supposedly do those things. I'm talking about ethical ways to behave.

If the Biblical God wanted men to kill people simply because they didn't worship him, then that's the standard for our behavior too, or else the God in the Bible was made up by those ancient people to justify killing those who worshiped a different god.

[jason]

As with Mad Gabriel it is you to making foolish ignorant statements comparing faliable humans to an omnipotent all-powerful being that makes the rules. Since when did the sins, actions and decisions of humans have anything to do with God's.
Umm ... so you concede that abortion is human sacrifice ?

After all, the comment I was quibbling with, if you go back and read what I wrote was the idea that the current culture does not approve of human sacrifice.

If you concede that point, then your entire rant is misplaced.

Jason

[Meh_Gerbil]

I do not support abortion, but I think it is hypocrytical and shallow to compare the human frailty of peoples decisions concerning abortion and other issues with God's actions and orders in the OT. God is an omnipotent, all-powerful being and can do whatever God choses. People on the other hand are faliable and prown to make bad sometimes very bad decisions.

That isn't where the comparison is being made.

The comparison is between DJ claiming he is appalled by the thought of Abraham's offering of Isaac (at the request of a G_d who knew in advance the sacrifice wouldn't occur) while at the same time having no apparent problem with the sacrifice of a million children a year because daddy wants a new car and mommy wants to stay slim.

DJ is only claiming to be appalled because it fits his agenda -- and aren't we all just a little tired of intellectual posers? DJ is no more offended by the idea of Abraham's near sacrifice of Isaac than a believer -- he fakes his concern because he thinks it gives him higher moral ground.

People who pretend they are upset over something that happened 3,500 years ago are using their disgust as a defense mechanism -- which is fine, but it makes a very poor offensive weapon.

[markporter]

Mark Porter: Why is it that you think "honest doubt" is a stretch?

Because this just doesn't look like doubt, it looks much more like solid opposition.

[shunyadragon]

Umm ... so you concede that abortion is human sacrifice ?

After all, the comment I was quibbling with, if you go back and read what I wrote was the idea that the current culture does not approve of human sacrifice.

If you concede that point, then your entire rant is misplaced.

Jason

I did not concede that abortion is human sacrafice. I challenged your rant that there is any logical comparison to the wrongness of human failings with the nature of God's commands and actions in the OT. God is responsible for God's commands and actions and in fact God created free will in such a way that humans do often act egocentrically with blatent disregard for life and many other failings, and ah . . . factory defects.

[shunyadragon]

That isn't where the comparison is being made.

The comparison is between DJ claiming he is appalled by the thought of Abraham's offering of Isaac (at the request of a G_d who knew in advance the sacrifice wouldn't occur) while at the same time having no apparent problem with the sacrifice of a million children a year because daddy wants a new car and mommy wants to stay slim.

There isn't? The subject of the post is the actions and commands of God in the OT, human sacrafice is one of the sticky problems.

DJ is only claiming to be appalled because it fits his agenda -- and aren't we all just a little tired of intellectual posers? DJ is no more offended by the idea of Abraham's near sacrifice of Isaac than a believer -- he fakes his concern because he thinks it gives him higher moral ground.

You and DJ are making the comparison with human failings to challenge a moral ground for the attrocities in the OT. It is not fake concern. There are other incidents ot attrocities commited and commanded by God and at least one incident of human sacrafice where the perpetrater is than praised in the NT. Do I need to refresh your memory concerning this human sacrafice, and the fact that he was the subject of great praise in the NT? Hint, ah . . . in involved the man's own daughter.

People who pretend they are upset over something that happened 3,500 years ago are using their disgust as a defense mechanism -- which is fine, but it makes a very poor offensive weapon.

The counter challenge bringing up human failings is poor defensive challenge.

[Tim Holt]

To say someone is good is to say that they act in ways that are good; that is, they behave according to some standard of goodness. But since your God sets the standards for goodness in the first place, then how can you ever say that God is good? You can only say that God is.....well.....God. You cannot say he's good!

Perhaps you'd like to develop this point, because at the moment it doesn't seem quite right.

Suppose that God gets to set the standard of goodness, and, to keep things simple, he sets it as being loving.

Whatever standard of goodness God sets, the assertion that God is good claims that God meets it.

So, in this example, when we say that God is good, we assert that God is loving. If he is, then our statement is true; if he isn't, then our statement is false.

If God set a different standard of goodness, then the assertion that God is good would claim that God meets that.

So what's nonsensical about saying that God both sets and meets the standard of goodness?

[freemanexc]

The mistake that most of you christianities are making is the following. Quite a few of you said that you must look at the time of "god's" (Hebrew) barbaric nature. I agree, it was the Hebrews who were extremely barbaric and they translated that into a mythological deity! Just like many early societies, the people defined their god or gods through their own actions and jews were not an exception!

ALL RELIGIONS ARE = TO MYTHOLOGY!

You are unable to prove with any credible source that your beloved jesus ever walked this earth!

But even if you hold to your beliefs, then lets look at jewish customs and examine your godchild.
It was the custom of the jews, which are betrothed to live as man and wife for one year. At the end of the year they would wed and the woman (~12 years old just like mary) was still considered a virgin! If she was pregnant and the man still wanted to marry her, she was still considered a virgin! Hence, jesus born of a virgin!

[Meh_Gerbil]

There isn't? The subject of the post is the actions and commands of God in the OT, human sacrafice is one of the sticky problems.

But when you compared man's actions to G_d's actions you admitted that man has no means to understand the motivations of G_d -- that being the case, who are you to judge a situation you don't understand? I'm not saying you cannot -- I just don't get the logical connection.

You and DJ are making the comparison with human failings to challenge a moral ground for the attrocities in the OT. It is not fake concern. There are other incidents ot attrocities commited and commanded by God and at least one incident of human sacrafice where the perpetrater is than praised in the NT. Do I need to refresh your memory concerning this human sacrafice, and the fact that he was the subject of great praise in the NT? Hint, ah . . . in involved the man's own daughter.

I'd like to challenge you here to take 24 hours and actually think about a response to this question: Do you really care? No, I mean really. Is this really an obstacle for you or is it just an excuse or a favor tool to pester Christians with?

The counter challenge bringing up human failings is poor defensive challenge.

The point of brining up the human failings isn't that G_d's failings and human failings are equivalent, but rather to demonstrate that DJ approves of the behavior for which he ostensibly is condemning G_d -- all the while acknowledging that the human failings have understood motives (shallow, at that) while G_d's motives are unknown.

[FirstSunday33ad]

You shift gears quite a bit here, so I will break down what you are saying and respond in pieces.

God cannot behave in ways that he forbids us to behave unless he operates by a different ethical standard, which we call hypocritical and immoral. Of course, he may be able to fly and read our minds--things we cannot do--because he can supposedly do those things. I'm talking about ethical ways to behave.

If the Biblical God wanted men to kill people simply because they didn't worship him, then that's the standard for our behavior too, or else the God in the Bible was made up by those ancient people to justify killing those who worshiped a different god.

Those people died not because they "worshiped a different God" if that were the case everyone on the planet would be dead except the Hebrews, they died because they were a perverse, violent and deadly people whose presence endangered the salvation of humanity.

In other words they weren't murdered, they were executed for crimes against humanity.

To say someone is good is to say that they act in ways that are good; that is, they behave according to some standard of goodness. But since your God sets the standards for goodness in the first place, then how can you ever say that God is good? You can only say that God is.....well.....God. You cannot say he's good!

But if there is a standard that God himself must abide by that he didn't set himself, then and only then can we call him good...if he acts according to that standard. But then you find yourself in another problem, because you'd have to ask who set this standard for God to abide by, and so on, and so on.

I say that if God appeared to me and told me to sacrifice my son, and I initially knew without a doubt that it was in fact God commanding me to do this, I would refuse simply because murder of innocents is wrong, especially by their father. Of course, since I'm so convinced of that ethic, even though I had previously been convinced it was God doing the commanding, I would subsequently reject my initial impression and deny that it was God doing the commanding. I would change my mind at that point and believe instead that I was being deceived into thinking this was God. I dare say you would too!

1) Is God Good? Your question is a reprise of the Euthyphro question; the answer to the question is that Euthyphro is a false dilemma. When the question of good is applied to God, then it loses its frame of reference. Good IS God. Therefore it becomes impossible to speak of them as being separate. It is like asking how wet is water?

The standards that we follow are not standards that God “set”. He did not scan down a list of possible actions and arbitrarily decide “murder – wrong”, “charity – right”, nor does God simply declare “It is good because I say it is good”. Good is the very nature and being of God. If something is “not good” then it is “anti-God” and to ask can God do that which is opposition to Himself is like asking can water be anything other than wet? If it is, it is not water but something else. So to with God, if any action of His is “not Good” then He cannot be God. If any action IS thought to be good but is not a part of God, than it cannot be good.

Again, this is not arbitrary; this is not something God “chose” to be; it is something that He is. Good for God is not a standard, it is a description. You can ask:

Q “Why is this good?”
A: “Because it is part of God”.
Q “Why is this not good?”
A “because it is not a part of God?”
Q: “So if God asks me to kill a child, is that good or not good?”
A: “Murder is not part of God, so how can it be good? If it is not part of God, how can God ask you to murder? The question therefore becomes an oxymoron and a contradiction and could not be asked”

Besides, I would never think that telling a father to kill his son could in any stretch be ethical,

I seriously doubt you know what you are truly saying here. You state that “I would never think that telling a father to kill his son could in any stretch be ethical” , but what if the child had a virulent contagious disease and was walking towards a group of other children – your own among them – putting them in real danger of infection. It is my child; I am within pistol range and I have a gun: Are you saying you would not start shouting “shoot him…shoot him”? Are you saying that even if you did shout such a command that it would be unethical and shouldn’t be done?

even if you put a gun to his head just to test him to see if he really would do it, and even if in fact you would say to him before he pulled the trigger, "I was just testing you." How would you feel about such a test? It's reprehensible and immoral, even if there is no gun to his head and you promised him good things if he did it. Immoral tests like that are just that--immoral. And the Bible says God did that? Horrible, absolutely horrible. The only reason Abraham didn't vehemently rejected it outright is because he lived among people who weren't horrified by the prospect of doing so. He was a child of his times; he heard voices in his head; he told people he heard God speaking to him; by chance he saw a Ram; he heard another voice in his head; and Isaac praised God-------for the luck of it all.

You have either ignored or did not see my previous reply to this so I will simply reprint it.

I take exception also to the idea that this was test of Abraham's faith. The command was a lesson, not just for Abraham but for Israel and mankind as well. That which we love and cherish can be taken from us in a moment. To cling to or to worship the things of this life is foolish.

Abraham cherished Isaac, so much so that he was in danger of losing his perspective and his obedience to God. The command snapped him back to reality. Isaac could die; he was mortal he would die someday. His existance was not what was the most important element in Abraham life; his faith and obedience to God was.

On another level, the command illustrated in clear terms the decision God would make with His own Son Jesus. Jesus would one day be sacrificed for the salvation of the world. Where God stayed Abraham's hand on the alter, He would not stay the hand of the wicked in destroying the life of His Son. The sacrifice Abraham was prepared to make out of his love for God, God would make for us out of His love for humanity.

[jason]

You are unable to prove with any credible source that your beloved jesus ever walked this earth!
Oh man not another one. :sigh:

Do you christ myth idiots grow on trees or something ?

Jason

[Furor]

The mistake that most of you christianities are making
Are you a 'bot?

I'll take any response as confirmation of this.

[Da Ol' Celtic X]

Shunyadragon:

[QUOTE=As with Mad Gabriel it is you to making foolish ignorant statements comparing faliable humans to an omnipotent all-powerful being that makes the rules. Since when did the sins, actions and decisions of humans have anything to do with God's.QUOTE]

Reaaallly... If got is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniferous, then it appears the Christian God is not only 'there' during the ripping, God doesn't intervene, and... for a bonus, God created mankind knowing little babies were going to be ripped up, and then the details were going to be placed in the bible for historical recollection, so we can truly understand how to perform the age old ritual of abortion, etc...

[shunyadragon]

Oh man not another one. :sigh:

Do you christ myth idiots grow on trees or something ?

Jason

No, they went to universities and got an education.

[shunyadragon]

But when you compared man's actions to G_d's actions you admitted that man has no means to understand the motivations of G_d -- that being the case, who are you to judge a situation you don't understand? I'm not saying you cannot -- I just don't get the logical connection.

I do not get the connection. No, I did not admit that humans do not have the capacity to understand God's motives, but this would only be true in the ultimate sense. I do feel there is enough evidence to indicate that the Isrealites acted on their own when they commited attorcities and claimed to have done it on God's orders. I believe it is well within the ability of human judgement to believe God's actions and commands should not be contradictory over time, and believing these were God's literal actions and commands in the OT would indicate contradictions in the morals and motivations of an omnipotent all-knowing God whose motivation would be love and justice.



I'd like to challenge you here to take 24 hours and actually think about a response to this question: Do you really care? No, I mean really. Is this really an obstacle for you or is it just an excuse or a favor tool to pester Christians with?

Yes I care and I will continue to pester Christians with reality 'as it is'.



The point of brining up the human failings isn't that G_d's failings and human failings are equivalent, but rather to demonstrate that DJ approves of the behavior for which he ostensibly is condemning G_d -- all the while acknowledging that the human failings have understood motives (shallow, at that) while G_d's motives are unknown.

My challenge is a little different, but on the same line. DJ and I do not agree on this point. I consider the scripture of ancient religions as representing thepeoples view of God and not the real nature of God. I am challenging the reality of the OT God as presented in the OT, and reject any comparisons between human weaknesses and failings and God's actions and orders as presented in the OT.

[Laughlyn]

I did not concede that abortion is human sacrafice. I challenged your rant that there is any logical comparison to the wrongness of human failings with the nature of God's commands and actions in the OT. God is responsible for God's commands and actions and in fact God created free will in such a way that humans do often act egocentrically with blatent disregard for life and many other failings, and ah . . . factory defects.

Well, this states that man's free will by definition must result in evil, which doesn't really correspond with Judeo-Christian theology, the defects are a result of our choices, not the factory. ;)

[Laughlyn]

Shunyadragon:

[QUOTE=As with Mad Gabriel it is you to making foolish ignorant statements comparing faliable humans to an omnipotent all-powerful being that makes the rules. Since when did the sins, actions and decisions of humans have anything to do with God's.QUOTE]

Reaaallly... If got is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniferous, then it appears the Christian God is not only 'there' during the ripping, God doesn't intervene, and... for a bonus, God created mankind knowing little babies were going to be ripped up, and then the details were going to be placed in the bible for historical recollection, so we can truly understand how to perform the age old ritual of abortion, etc...

Oh, da ol' Theos Die and omnipotence issue? ;)
Well, the Bible indicates that we were created as independent agents, with a free will, and a responsibility for our actions. This wouldn't work if God constantly intervened and controlled our courses of action.

Then again, there's no free choice if there was a fate for God to know, although He still might be aware of all possible events.

[jason]

No, they went to universities and got an education.
:lmbo:

Oh wait. your serious :lolo:

Jason

[shunyadragon]

Well, this states that man's free will by definition must result in evil, which doesn't really correspond with Judeo-Christian theology, the defects are a result of our choices, not the factory. ;)

By definition free-will will result in bad choices, sometimes very bad choices, and not necessarily evil.

God is ultimately responsible for what God creates and the rules. In the supposed garden of Eden and temptation of Adam and Eve, the God of the OT is ultimately responsible for setting them up. The tree and the forbidden fruit would eventually be eaten by someone even if Eve was not the first.

[Laughlyn]

By definition free-will will result in bad choices, sometimes very bad choices, and not necessarily evil.

God is ultimately responsible for what God creates and the rules. In the supposed garden of Eden and temptation of Adam and Eve, the God of the OT is ultimately responsible for setting them up. The tree and the forbidden fruit would eventually be eaten by someone even if Eve was not the first.

I see it as free will results in free choice - which mustn't result in bad ones. Sure, I see you problem, which is a tough one, and I've to admit that it's one I haven't given much consideration at all.

Glenn Miller, for one, has: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/gutripper.html

[FirstSunday33ad]

By definition free-will will result in bad choices, sometimes very bad choices, and not necessarily evil.

God is ultimately responsible for what God creates and the rules. In the supposed garden of Eden and temptation of Adam and Eve, the God of the OT is ultimately responsible for setting them up. The tree and the forbidden fruit would eventually be eaten by someone even if Eve was not the first.

The point of putting the Tree of Knowledge in the garden was that free will without free choice is meaningless.

God gave us free will but without the opportunity or ability to exercise it, the gift would be the same as creating us without freewill. The TofK therefore, provided the means by which freewill could be exercised. Even though God knew that A&E would violate the command and eat the fruit, He had to provide them with the opportunity and the ability IF He wanted to create beings with true free will.

Further, even with the TofK and the ability to freely choose, without a spokesman for the alternative to obedience, free will can not really be exercised. Lack of motivation towards an act generally results in that act not being performed. Therefore, had God simply placed the TofK in the Garden, given the command, but then not allowed any temptation to disobey the command, it could not be said that A&E were fully aware of their capabilities and were simply obeying in ignorance and not by choice.

[Doubting John]

First Sunday:
"nor does God simply declare “It is good because I say it is good”. Good is the very nature and being of God."

And this is because God says so? He says "I am good," and that's it, right? Because there would be no standard above God to test to see for sure whether he is in fact good. He's good because he says so.

Well then, when God says "it is good because I say it is good," then we know it is good because he says that he is good. But apart from him merely saying so, we have no reason to suppose that he is, right?

God could be a terrible monster and declare that he is good and we would have no way to say that he isn't, right? We couldn't judge the standard of the universe, could we? No! Because then there would be a standard above God to say otherwise, which would make the standard giver God.

In fact, God could be a terrible monster, could he not? He could be causing all of the evil in the world and then tell us that he doesn't do evil, that is, he could lie. God could also create another universe in which the standards of the universe are different, simply because he says so, couldn't he?

You say it's his nature to be good. But the only reason you know this is because he says so, you would have to say.

I however, think there is a standard of goodness that even the God of the Bible must follow. That's why I say that the God of the Bible doesn't exist. That God does not behave himself with good deeds, and that is the standard for believeing whether or not this God exists. I say he doesn't.

[FirstSunday33ad]

First Sunday:
"nor does God simply declare “It is good because I say it is good”. Good is the very nature and being of God."

And this is because God says so? He says "I am good," and that's it, right? Because there would be no standard above God to test to see for sure whether he is in fact good. He's good because he says so.

Well then, when God says "it is good because I say it is good," then we know it is good because he says that he is good. But apart from him merely saying so, we have no reason to suppose that he is, right?

God could be a terrible monster and declare that he is good and we would have no way to say that he isn't, right? We couldn't judge the standard of the universe, could we? No! Because then there would be a standard above God to say otherwise, which would make the standard giver God.

In fact, God could be a terrible monster, could he not? He could be causing all of the evil in the world and then tell us that he doesn't do evil, that is, he could lie. God could also create another universe in which the standards of the universe are different, simply because he says so, couldn't he?

You say it's his nature to be good. But the only reason you know this is because he says so, you would have to say.

I however, think there is a standard of goodness that even the God of the Bible must follow. That's why I say that the God of the Bible doesn't exist. That God does not behave himself with good deeds, and that is the standard for believeing whether or not this God exists. I say he doesn't.


There is a flaw in your argument.

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that God is indeed a “monster”. How could we arrive at that conclusion if God also sets our standard of what is good and what isn’t? If God were a monster, so would we be monsters and that which now horrifies us we would delight in.

We can say with certainty that God must be good as we innately understand what good is; OUR standard can not possibly be different from God’s. Since we are horrified by “evil”, since we instinctively draw towards and reward the kind, the loving and the merciful, it is not possible that God is not also kind, loving and merciful. Otherwise, where did we get our morality?

This is illustrated in the myths of the ancients. Their gods were very carnal, arbitrary and at times wicked. They raped, they seduced, lied, murdered and destroyed without just cause. At times they were petty and vindictive. They could reasonably be called “monsters” – or at least bullies. Such gods were acceptable to the ancients to whom “might made right” but even by the Hammarabi period, people began to wonder how they could have a sense of justice when their gods apparently didn’t. The contradiction between a god that could do what man sees as wrong, could not be reconciled.

So in answer to your question; no, God could not be secretly evil and only lying and telling us to be good. If God were evil, we would be evil.

But in response to your final statement that there is a standard that even God must follow; in a twisted way you are correct. The “standard” is God Himself, God must be consistent with His nature, since evil exists outside of God, it is impossible for God to do evil as that is a contradiction. But before you decide that God has indeed committed evil, you must first determine just what evil actually is and then determine if this is what God actually did.

Until then you are just making accusations and arriving at a verdict without trial.

[Da Ol' Celtic X]

Shunyadragon wrote, "God is ultimately responsible for what God creates and the rules. In the supposed garden of Eden and temptation of Adam and Eve, the God of the OT is ultimately responsible for setting them up. The tree and the forbidden fruit would eventually be eaten by someone even if Eve was not the first."

There were only two people in the beginning, or so the KJV 1611 edition after many tranlations reveals, within the two creation accounts in genesis... You assert the fruit could have been eaten by further generations? Well, then God would have had to 'bait' them with the 'Don't eat of the TofK'... It really doesn't matter does it... I agree with what you said.. 'God is ultimately responsible for what God creates and the rules', if he/she/it created the Universe and they were omniscient then it stands to reason they deliberatley created man knowing full well his creation would be tortured for eternity... why knowingly create beings/sould to torment for all eternity, and creating the rules knowing the end result... seems a trite sadistic to me, but... maybe there is another way of looking at it...

Maybe a case for cosmic entrapment?

[Doubting John]

FirstSunday33ad

Okay, you've given me an intelligent post. I like responding to intelligent questions. Thank you, even if we disagree. It makes this thing more like it should be.

Your Quote:
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that God is indeed a “monster”. How could we arrive at that conclusion if God also sets our standard of what is good and what isn’t?

My point is that we wouldn't be able to say that "God is good" or that "God is a monster." We just couldn't know either way, since God sets the moral standard. But I can say that the God in the Bible is a monster, based upon what I know about morality. So where did I gain my morality? How do I defend it? That's a complex topic. But I do condemn the God of the Bible as being morally unfit to be the real God. He's an imposter, made up by the Jewish/Christian mind.

Your Quote:
If God were a monster, so would we be monsters and that which now horrifies us we would delight in.

Which again is my point. We would have to behave as God commands us to. That would be our moral standard. And yes, we would have to act like monsters (judged from our present perspective that says such behavior is monsterous). But again, this is my real point: we wouldn't think that how we behaved was in fact monsterous. It would now be labelled good behavior because it was like God's behavior.

Your quote:
We can say with certainty that God must be good as we innately understand what good is; OUR standard can not possibly be different from God’s. Since we are horrified by “evil”, since we instinctively draw towards and reward the kind, the loving and the merciful, it is not possible that God is not also kind, loving and merciful. Otherwise, where did we get our morality?

But if what is good is good merely because God commanded it, and there is no reason beyond why God commanded us to do good, then we simply cannot tell whether or not what we do is good when we do what God commands. All we can say, if we truly know what God wants us to do, is that we're doing what God wants us to do, and God calls that good. But again, we cannot say that we are doing good. We can only say we're doing what God commands. And neither can we tell whether God is good. We can only say that god is...well....God.

The possibility is there for God to be the devil in disguise. He can do whatever he wants to. Faith tells you God created the laws of nature along with an ordered in the universe. Well then, God also created the moral and ethical laws of this universe too. And the horrible conclusion to escape from, is the idea that this same God, if he exists, could have, and might have, created a different universe with a different moral and ethical set of laws, which judged by our own standards are monsterous. But neither that universe nor our universe thinks of those ethical laws as being different or evil.

[Da Ol' Celtic X]

FirstSunday33ad: "Since we are horrified by “evil”, since we instinctively draw towards and reward the kind, the loving and the merciful, it is not possible that God is not also kind, loving and merciful. Otherwise, where did we get our morality?"

Through thousands of years of trial and error... And... who defines 'evil'... Even the bible says the Lord created the light and the dark, if God created Satan then wouldn't that act seem immoral? or, is that again, God is beyond moral judgement from us mortals who just don't get the concept of evil... If mortals can't get the concept because we are fallible, and anihilate our ability to differentiate information truthfully, honestly, and meaningfully then how is it possible for these same mortals to write a book that is used to found entire religions? Isn't their words also corrupt via mortal fallibility? Couldn't all religions claim to be of equal stature then, just as fallible as all other religions?

[shunyadragon]

The point of putting the Tree of Knowledge in the garden was that free will without free choice is meaningless.

God gave us free will but without the opportunity or ability to exercise it, the gift would be the same as creating us without freewill. The TofK therefore, provided the means by which freewill could be exercised. Even though God knew that A&E would violate the command and eat the fruit, He had to provide them with the opportunity and the ability IF He wanted to create beings with true free will.

Further, even with the TofK and the ability to freely choose, without a spokesman for the alternative to obedience, free will can not really be exercised. Lack of motivation towards an act generally results in that act not being performed. Therefore, had God simply placed the TofK in the Garden, given the command, but then not allowed any temptation to disobey the command, it could not be said that A&E were fully aware of their capabilities and were simply obeying in ignorance and not by choice.

I feel that there is a symbolic meaning to the Genesis story and Adam and Eve as the first humans to know God and the consequences of acquiring the knowledge of the universe, and bad and good choices. I reject the traditional Christian versions of temptation, the fall, original sin, and God setting them up in consideration of a literal or traditional worldview of genesis. Ancient literature does not hold the keys to the future. It is our past, our very distant past. Putting things in perspective is important in understand the big picture.

[FirstSunday33ad]

I feel that there is a symbolic meaning to the Genesis story and Adam and Eve as the first humans to know God and the consequences of acquiring the knowledge of the universe, and bad and good choices. I reject the traditional Christian versions of temptation, the fall, original sin, and God setting them up in consideration of a literal or traditional worldview of genesis. Ancient literature does not hold the keys to the future. It is our past, our very distant past. Putting things in perspective is important in understand the big picture.

At a certain level of discussion, it is unimportant whether the first chapters of Genesis are literal or not. Myself, I do not think that they are. Ancient myths were not told to record history but to explain man's place in the cosmos and why things were the way they were. Whether the events described in the myths actually happened or not would be deemed irrelevant to the ancient man, what mattered was the consequence.

The focus of the A&E myth was to explain and enlighten early Hebrews of their relationship with God and their role in creation. It told them very succulently that contrary to the beliefs of the surrounding peoples that:

1) God is singular.
2) God has always existed,; He has no beginning
3) Creation was a deliberate act and not an effect
4) Man was created deliberately as a child of God
5) Woman was created as a companion of man
6) Women are as much children of God as man is
7) Everything God created was “good” – there was no corruption in it
8) Man has free will and has the freedom to use it
9) Man was responsible for his fall from grace not God
10) Man’s fall was caused by his greed and his pride
11) Man’s condition – toil, suffering pain – is his punishment
12) God is merciful but also just. He is bound by Law and is not arbitrary

When contrasted against the origin myths of the surrounding cultures, this view of the cosmos is stunningly sophisticated and advanced. For it to emerge from a pre-bronze age, nomadic desert tribe is nothing less than incredible.

[FirstSunday33ad]

FirstSunday33ad

Okay, you've given me an intelligent post. I like responding to intelligent questions. Thank you, even if we disagree. It makes this thing more like it should be.

Your Quote:
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that God is indeed a “monster”. How could we arrive at that conclusion if God also sets our standard of what is good and what isn’t?

My point is that we wouldn't be able to say that "God is good" or that "God is a monster." We just couldn't know either way, since God sets the moral standard. But I can say that the God in the Bible is a monster, based upon what I know about morality. So where did I gain my morality? How do I defend it? That's a complex topic. But I do condemn the God of the Bible as being morally unfit to be the real God. He's an imposter, made up by the Jewish/Christian mind.

Your Quote:
If God were a monster, so would we be monsters and that which now horrifies us we would delight in.

Which again is my point. We would have to behave as God commands us to. That would be our moral standard. And yes, we would have to act like monsters (judged from our present perspective that says such behavior is monsterous). But again, this is my real point: we wouldn't think that how we behaved was in fact monsterous. It would now be labelled good behavior because it was like God's behavior.

Your quote:
We can say with certainty that God must be good as we innately understand what good is; OUR standard can not possibly be different from God’s. Since we are horrified by “evil”, since we instinctively draw towards and reward the kind, the loving and the merciful, it is not possible that God is not also kind, loving and merciful. Otherwise, where did we get our morality?

But if what is good is good merely because God commanded it, and there is no reason beyond why God commanded us to do good, then we simply cannot tell whether or not what we do is good when we do what God commands. All we can say, if we truly know what God wants us to do, is that we're doing what God wants us to do, and God calls that good. But again, we cannot say that we are doing good. We can only say we're doing what God commands. And neither can we tell whether God is good. We can only say that god is...well....God.

The possibility is there for God to be the devil in disguise. He can do whatever he wants to. Faith tells you God created the laws of nature along with an ordered in the universe. Well then, God also created the moral and ethical laws of this universe too. And the horrible conclusion to escape from, is the idea that this same God, if he exists, could have, and might have, created a different universe with a different moral and ethical set of laws, which judged by our own standards are monsterous. But neither that universe nor our universe thinks of those ethical laws as being different or evil.

That which is “good” is not “good” because God says so. It is not arbitrary. That which is good is good because it is impossible for it to be anything else. God is the source of good, in the same way that a lake is a source for a river. As I previously stated:

Q “Why is this good?”
A: “Because it is part of God”.
Q “Why is this not good?”
A “because it is not a part of God?”
Q: “So if God asks me to kill a child, is that good or not good?”
A: “Murder is not part of God, so how can it be good? If it is not part of God, how can God ask you to murder? The request therefore becomes an oxymoron and a contradiction and could not be asked”

There is no possibility that God is a devil in disguise; He is as bound to His own laws as we are. This binding is not arbitrary but a logical necessity as the Laws of God are as inseparable as the Love, the Goodness, the Mercy and the Justice of God. They do not exist separately from Him and He does not “choose” them as we might choose shoes; rather these characteristics ARE God just as God IS them.

It would not matter how many universes God created, each and every one of them MUST by His very nature and character be created under the same rules, laws and morals as the next.

[FirstSunday33ad]

FirstSunday33ad: "Since we are horrified by “evil”, since we instinctively draw towards and reward the kind, the loving and the merciful, it is not possible that God is not also kind, loving and merciful. Otherwise, where did we get our morality?"

Through thousands of years of trial and error... And... who defines 'evil'... Even the bible says the Lord created the light and the dark, if God created Satan then wouldn't that act seem immoral? or, is that again, God is beyond moral judgement from us mortals who just don't get the concept of evil... If mortals can't get the concept because we are fallible, and anihilate our ability to differentiate information truthfully, honestly, and meaningfully then how is it possible for these same mortals to write a book that is used to found entire religions? Isn't their words also corrupt via mortal fallibility? Couldn't all religions claim to be of equal stature then, just as fallible as all other religions?

God is not beyond the moral judgment of mortals; in fact mortals judge the moral conduct of God all the time and have for millennia. It was this moral judgment that caused the Greek sages to question the reality of Zeus and the other gods. But making a moral judgment and making an accusation are two different matters. If we are to judge the actions of God as given to us in the Bible, we must be certain of our terms and our conditions first.

As to the writings of the Bible, you seem to mix your message. True – IF God does not exist – then the writers of the Bible were just as incapable of writing a sacred text any different from any other. However, IF God does exist – then these same writers under divine influence definitely could write a sacred text that has far more validity than any other.

[Doubting John]

FirstSunday33ad:

"Q “Why is this good?”
A: “Because it is part of God”.
Q “Why is this not good?”
A “because it is not a part of God?” "

But as I indicated the word "good" has no meaning other than merely saying this is what God wants us to do. We can have no independent verification that something is really good, unless there is a standard not set by God himself.


Q: “So if God asks me to kill a child, is that good or not good?”
A: “Murder is not part of God, so how can it be good? If it is not part of God, how can God ask you to murder? The request therefore becomes an oxymoron and a contradiction and could not be asked”

What? Then God asked Abraham to murder--to act in an evil way--after all! This doesn't even begin to deal with all of the people he wanted the Jews to kill in the Bible. God even gets angry when they don't actually kill everyone he wanted dead!


"There is no possibility that God is a devil in disguise; He is as bound to His own laws as we are. This binding is not arbitrary but a logical necessity as the Laws of God are as inseparable as the Love, the Goodness, the Mercy and the Justice of God. They do not exist separately from Him and He does not “choose” them as we might choose shoes; rather these characteristics ARE God just as God IS them."

But again, we have no reason to suppose that he is good, only that he....well....is, as you admitted, I think. We could talk about how God "chooses" his moral standards. Upon what basis could he do so? There was never a time when he thought about it and made a choice to set those standards, according to Christian theology. He has always and forever had those standards, according to you. Then how does God know that these standards are good?

Think about it. He never weighed the alternatives, and he was never given a choice between those alternatives. A good man, we say, is someone who weighs the alternatives and chooses to do right. [And by the way, that's what we think of when we say a person is a free--he has the ability to make chocies; so, is God a free person?] A child, for instance, is innocent, we say, because he or she hasn't reached the age of accountability. Well then, God has never reached the "age of accountability" either. He cannot know right from wrong--but is he innocent? We today have standards to judge children as innocent, because we have standards outside of the child. But according to you, there are no outside standards for God, so there is, again, no way to know that God is good...only that he is....well....God. His nature may well be evil from the beginning, except that we wouldn't know it as evil, because he declares it good.

It would not matter how many universes God created, each and every one of them MUST by His very nature and character be created under the same rules, laws and morals as the next.

But what is that nature? We cannot say that it is good, nor can we say that it is evil, technically, either. All we can say is that...well...it is, if it is.

But my main point is that the God in the Bible does not live up to the moral standards that most all civilized people have today. And since most Christians here are not cultural relativists, then God commanded evil--horrifying evil.

This Biblical God doesn't exist--never did. And to demand a human sacrifice for our sins is ancient and barbaric too. See my thread: "Why Did Jesus Suffer?" to get an idea of why I think so. This Biblical God is the projection of ancient people, and all civilized people would condemn such a God, if he really existed, which he does not.

[FirstSunday33ad]

But as I indicated the word "good" has no meaning other than merely saying this is what God wants us to do. We can have no independent verification that something is really good, unless there is a standard not set by God himself.

Well we are talking in circles. “Good” does have a meaning for us. We intrinsically understand what is meant when we say “this is good”. We know that kindness, love, mercy, compassion, etc are “good” – we have no trouble accepting this definition of these acts. Yet if God exists, we must have gotten this intrinsic knowledge from Him, since all must flow from God.

Given that God is perfect – else He would not be God – we must accept that He is perfectly good. This is only possible if “good” is not a standard by which God is measured nor merely something that is applied to whatever act God does, but is in fact inseparable from God. God is not just “good” in the same sense that someone is a Democrat or a Republican – God is the very essence and meaning of “good”. When we say feeding the hungry is “good” what we are really saying is “feeding the hungry is God”.

What? Then God asked Abraham to murder--to act in an evil way--after all! This doesn't even begin to deal with all of the people he wanted the Jews to kill in the Bible. God even gets angry when they don't actually kill everyone he wanted dead!

What makes you conclude that any of these acts were evil? Morality is not always pleasant and ethics rarely are; but that does not make them evil.

In the case of Abraham, I will restate my reply earlier:

I take exception also to the idea that this was test of Abraham's faith. The command was a lesson, not just for Abraham but for Israel and mankind as well. That which we love and cherish can be taken from us in a moment. To cling to or to worship the things of this life is foolish.

Abraham cherished Isaac, so much so that he was in danger of losing his perspective and his obedience to God. The command snapped him back to reality. Isaac could die; he was mortal he would die someday. His existence was not the most important element in Abraham’s life; his faith and obedience to God was.

On another level, the command illustrated in clear terms the decision God would make with His own Son Jesus. Jesus would one day be sacrificed for the salvation of the world. Where God stayed Abraham's hand at the alter; He would not stay the hand of the wicked in destroying the life of His Son. The sacrifice Abraham was prepared to make out of his love for God, God would make for us out of His love for humanity.


As to the Amalikytes, before you decide that this was an evil act, you must first answer the question is it evil or immoral to use violence to destroy evil? Is this immoral even if the evil represents a danger to others or the rest of the planet? Is this immoral even if the evil does represent a threat to the planet AND there is no other way to stop this evil?

If your answer to these questions is “yes, it is still evil” Then you must further answer, was it immoral to stop the Germans and Japanese from their attempts to dominate the world by waging war against them? Was it immoral to bomb their cities?

In the case of the Amalikytes, all we encounter here is the moral dilemma of “when faced with a difficult moral choice is there any acceptable response?” It is best illustrated in the moral dilemma stated as follows;

You are walking beside a train track. You see ahead of you that the rail splits into two tracks. On one track is a child walking on the tracks, on the other is a group of men. You are too far away to recognize them or to be heard by them if you shouted. Suddenly you see a train coming along behind them. This train will travel on one of the two tracks. You realize you are standing next to a switch box and can change the direction of the train or not as you choose. You can either save the child or the group of men.

What do you do?

No matter what course of action you take, you will have made an ethical decision and someone will die. Do you decide to kill the child or the group of men?

Morality is not always easy and ethics rarely are; but that does not make either of them evil.

[Doubting John]

Let's see. The Amlekites. Ah, yes. The God you believe in advocated genocide there. Genocide of every man, woman and child. And you're saying that this is "good" because it came from a "good" God?

In Joshua's day "God" advocated genocide too. And he even got angry when they failed to do it.

Nope. That God never existed, unless you can show me how that doing what God wanted done there is qualitatively different than Hitler's attempt at genocide of the Jews.

You're now wanting to defend the idea that every innocent non-combatant must be killed? Why? Self-defense is the best justification for war. Why was it self defense to kill an Amlekite child of the age of, say 3 years old, along with her mother? I want to know.

Either justify this killing, or along with me reject the whole notion that the Bible correctly describes God.

[FirstSunday33ad]

Let's see. The Amlekites. Ah, yes. The God you believe in advocated genocide there. Genocide of every man, woman and child. And you're saying that this is "good" because it came from a "good" God?

In Joshua's day "God" advocated genocide too. And he even got angry when they failed to do it.

Nope. That God never existed, unless you can show me how that doing what God wanted done there is qualitatively different than Hitler's attempt at genocide of the Jews.

You're now wanting to defend the idea that every innocent non-combatant must be killed? Why? Self-defense is the best justification for war. Why was it self defense to kill an Amlekite child of the age of, say 3 years old, along with her mother? I want to know.

Either justify this killing, or along with me reject the whole notion that the Bible correctly describes God.

Well John, notice you answer without considering any of the questions I posed and instead throw the question back at me.

I am beginning to understand that you are not "asking questions" as opposed to "making accusations" much in the same spirit as a prosecutor. Well I am not on trial and neither is God. You have decided that God is evil, well so says you - you are wrong.

But then I don't think you really care about that do you?

Ciao.....:cool:

[shunyadragon]

Well we are talking in circles. “Good” does have a meaning for us. We intrinsically understand what is meant when we say “this is good”. We know that kindness, love, mercy, compassion, etc are “good” – we have no trouble accepting this definition of these acts. Yet if God exists, we must have gotten this intrinsic knowledge from Him, since all must flow from God.

Given that God is perfect – else He would not be God – we must accept that He is perfectly good. This is only possible if “good” is not a standard by which God is measured nor merely something that is applied to whatever act God does, but is in fact inseparable from God. God is not just “good” in the same sense that someone is a Democrat or a Republican – God is the very essence and meaning of “good”. When we say feeding the hungry is “good” what we are really saying is “feeding the hungry is God”.

I agree that God is perfectly good, and the very essence of goodness and love, but the warped concept of the Biblical God is not good by any reasonable comparative measure you can chose. We do get our intrinsic knowledge of goodness and love from God and I believe that I am using the knowledge and judgement to make this comparison.

In the nature of existence that I see as a scientist I consider it good and the creation of God. Creation and humanity is a refelection of the nature and essence of God's image. Fortunated the primative Biblical anthropomorphic image of a jealous, vindictive, arbitray and ruthless cruel God is a primative worldview of God, and not God. Clinging to this ancient worldview is like a ball and chain that prevents the human soul from being truely free.


What makes you conclude that any of these acts were evil? Morality is not always pleasant and ethics rarely are; but that does not make them evil.

God created humanity in his image with the intrinsic and revealed knowledge of the nature of goodness and love, and any of the many varieties of these standards and values is enough to understand that the nature of a compassion loving God contridicts this primative worldview of God.

Abraham cherished Isaac, so much so that he was in danger of losing his perspective and his obedience to God. The command snapped him back to reality. Isaac could die; he was mortal he would die someday. His existence was not the most important element in Abraham’s life; his faith and obedience to God was.

On another level, the command illustrated in clear terms the decision God would make with His own Son Jesus. Jesus would one day be sacrificed for the salvation of the world. Where God stayed Abraham's hand at the alter; He would not stay the hand of the wicked in destroying the life of His Son. The sacrifice Abraham was prepared to make out of his love for God, God would make for us out of His love for humanity.

You need not debate the issue of Abraham to question the role of human sacrafice in the Bible. A certain individual in the OT sacraficed his own daughter, and this individual is than praised as reflecting the highest standards of a man of God in the NT. Do we need to go into this further?
His name was Jephathah


As to the Amalikytes, before you decide that this was an evil act, you must first answer the question is it evil or immoral to use violence to destroy evil? Is this immoral even if the evil represents a danger to others or the rest of the planet? Is this immoral even if the evil does represent a threat to the planet AND there is no other way to stop this evil?

If your answer to these questions is “yes, it is still evil” Then you must further answer, was it immoral to stop the Germans and Japanese from their attempts to dominate the world by waging war against them? Was it immoral to bomb their cities?

Bad comparason, since God did not command or dictate the course of World War II. Human fralities, and actions should not be used to evaluate the goodness of God's actions. God is not limited by human choices of alternativesas to whether God should command the slaughter of women and children.

In the case of the Amalikytes, all we encounter here is the moral dilemma of “when faced with a difficult moral choice is there any acceptable response?” It is best illustrated in the moral dilemma stated as follows;

You are walking beside a train track. You see ahead of you that the rail splits into two tracks. On one track is a child walking on the tracks, on the other is a group of men. You are too far away to recognize them or to be heard by them if you shouted. Suddenly you see a train coming along behind them. This train will travel on one of the two tracks. You realize you are standing next to a switch box and can change the direction of the train or not as you choose. You can either save the child or the group of men.

God as an omnipotent all-powerful entity is not faced with the moral corrundum of many human moral choices, and these have little to do with the context of the Bible and why God commanded these ethnic cleansings.

What do you do?

If I was God the choice would be a piece of cake.

[Guerdis]

That God is a hateful, racist and sexist God.

This is the primary fallacy of your statement. "Hatred" "Racism" and "Sexism" are only "evil" according to the standards of the secular, Western industrial world. It seems rather unreasonable to apply the quite recently-adopted norms and mores of a fledgling (and irreligious) human society to God as though God's ability to act were limited to the things that weren't reprehensible to what amounts to a quite wimpy little civilization who can't even bear being OFFENDED much less obliterated by an angry deity.


Consider the following things: In the Flood story we’re told God wanted to destroy all mankind. In Moses’ day God wanted to destroy all of the Israelites. In Joshua’s day God wanted the Israelites to kill all of the inhabitants of the Promised Land. Saul was told by God to destroy all of the Amalekites. According to Jonah, God was going to destroy the people of Nineveh. God also destroyed and scattered the northern tribes of Israel because he was displeased with them. God allowed the accuser to destroy Job’s health and family life just to win a “bet.” In the New Testament, God will destroy all unbelievers in the lake of fire. He’s a pretty barbaric God, if you ask me. This God is simply the reflection of ancient barbaric peoples.


Your mandate is that the Bible must be firstly literally true (making God real, the world God's and then chronicling God's actions in the world) and secondly, once it is literally true, the Bible then cannot represent God at all based upon the historical facts it contains (for these are anathema to all right-thinking folk). That's a fun little loop-de-loop, but I think you'd be better served by making up your mind BEFORE making such a statement.


Ludwig Feuerbach is surely right, God did not make us in his image, human beings made God in their image. Specifically, the ancient people of the Bible constructed their views of God based upon their own barbaric nature.


And of course, revelation is nonsense, moral story-telling never existed anywhere in the world at any time ever and God could never, ever, ever be anything described by modern humans as 'barbaric' just like God could never be born of a woman, could never die on a cross and could never thereby save humanity (in spite of its well-meaning abandonment of hatred, racism, sexism and barbarism) because that would just be insane! Impossible, even! (Have we not heard this sort of statement a million billion times by now, and has it not always been exceedingly untrue?)


God decreed that a man who picked up sticks on the Sabbath day was to be stoned to death (Numbers 15:32-36). God commanded that anyone who curses his father or mother was to be put to death (Exodus 21:17). Witches, and those of differing religious views were to be killed (Ex. 22:18,20). These are pretty stiff punishments, eh? This God declares that a slave is the property of another man (Exodus 21:21). God commanded men to divorce their foreign wives for no other reason but that they were not God’s people (Ezra 9), and women were helpless if they weren’t married in those days.

God asked Abraham to kill and sacrifice his son Isaac. If we heard a voice today telling us to do that, we would not think this voice was God’s, although Abraham wasn’t horrified at the suggestion. Enough for now. But example like these are plenty.


More typical atheistic/agnostic/generally anti-Christianity complaints which both lack vision and say nothing of real use. This amounts to the same as "because I find this unpleasant, it is obviously untrue". I would have to wonder if, for example, you were given some bad news of some sort. Would you then insist that because you didn't like the news, it was obviously a lie?

Indeed, there is a very human circumstance in which just this sort of thing takes place. It is commonly known as denial.

[technomage]

The God in the Bible simply cannot be describing the God that exists. That God is a hateful, racist and sexist God.

OK, I can dig that. But let me ask this: just because the map is inaccurate, does that mean that the terrain does not exist?

Of course there is no possible answer for the question as it stands. I might be holding an inaccurate map of my home town (a very real place, I assure you, but frightfully dull), or I could be holding an inaccurate map of Mordor--the latter obviously not being a real place.

That's the basic rebuttal: refuting the Bible (on any possible grounds, including moral) cannot refute the God of the Bible. Either you have an accurate map (which means you have an accurate depiction of God, however unpalateable you may find that depiction); or you have a inaccurate "map" which cannot be used to refute the "terrain."

Justin

[FirstSunday33ad]

Justin:

first, very intelligent observation.

second, "smoke free since June 8"? Way to go dude, keep it up the first 3 months are the hardest and then your body nolonger craves the nick drug.

:thumb:

[jason]

Let's see. The Amlekites. Ah, yes. The God you believe in advocated genocide there. Genocide of every man, woman and child. And you're saying that this is "good" because it came from a "good" God?
It wasn't genocide. But that is beside the point. You seem to assume the amelakites where just sitting around minding their own business.

For someone educated as a minister, I suggest you go and ask for your money back.

Nope. That God never existed, unless you can show me how that doing what God wanted done there is qualitatively different than Hitler's attempt at genocide of the Jews.
Interesting assertion. I would be impressed if you could tell me what the people that were killed where like culturally and then explain why the killing of them is so bad.

You're now wanting to defend the idea that every innocent non-combatant must be killed?
Clearly you are ignorant of how the collectivist culture of the time thought. No such innocents existed. But again, Go ask for your bible college money back.

Why was it self defense to kill an Amlekite child of the age of, say 3 years old, along with her mother? I want to know.
Perhaps you should explain what the alternative is.

Are you sure you are not making this "I was a minister" stuff up. You seem pretty ignorant for someone who was given an education. Either the bible college you went to is a joke, you didn't go, or else you do know the answer and are just seeking to destroy the faith of others.

So which is it ?

Jason

[FirstSunday33ad]

I agree that God is perfectly good, and the very essence of goodness and love, but the warped concept of the Biblical God is not good by any reasonable comparative measure you can chose. We do get our intrinsic knowledge of goodness and love from God and I believe that I am using the knowledge and judgement to make this comparison.

In the nature of existence that I see as a scientist I consider it good and the creation of God. Creation and humanity is a reflection of the nature and essence of God's image. Fortunated the primative Biblical anthropomorphic image of a jealous, vindictive, arbitray and ruthless cruel God is a primative worldview of God, and not God. Clinging to this ancient worldview is like a ball and chain that prevents the human soul from being truely free.

Yet you have no justification for this worldview and you are unable to back these statements up beyond simple argument by outrage. Your opinion is no different from those who declare that Hiroshima was an immoral act but who ignore the fact that the alternative was far, far worse.

You don’t LIKE the accounts in the Bible. Fine and dandy, neither do I; but you fail in offering up a reasonable workable alternative as to what should have been done – given the circumstances and limitations of the time. You cannot wave away the requirements of free will and justice. Was there a course of action that would have resulted in the same effect but would have avoided the means? Would this means have been just and would it have respected the freewill of those involved?

Unless you can competently answer that question, you are unqualified to say that God is “jealous, vindictive, arbitrary and ruthless”. To continue to do so only regulates you to the role of bigot.

God created humanity in his image with the intrinsic and revealed knowledge of the nature of goodness and love, and any of the many varieties of these standards and values is enough to understand that the nature of a compassion loving God contradicts this primitive worldview of God.

God is loving and compassionate, but He is also just. The accounts given in the Bible are not “worldviews” they are statements of God’s just nature. Crimes are punishable – we accept this as moral. Crimes against God therefore are equally punishable and equally moral; but God most often withholds punishment out of mercy. But when these crimes are not just against God but threaten the survival and redemption of all of humanity, God does act; He brings about the divine judgment that is just and right and removes the threat to mankind’s salvation.

The accounts in the Bible are accounts of instances of people being punished for crimes against God and who, if they were permitted to continue, would have prevented the salvation of the planet – past, present and future.

I think it was a punishment that was well deserved and it was just.


You need not debate the issue of Abraham to question the role of human sacrifice in the Bible. A certain individual in the OT sacrificed his own daughter, and this individual is than praised as reflecting the highest standards of a man of God in the NT. Do we need to go into this further?
His name was Jephathah

What has Jephathah got to do with Abraham? God did not command Jephathah to sacrifice his daughter, this was his own idea.

If you read the account you will notice that God does not speak directly at all. Jephathah took it upon himself to make the promise to God to sacrifice the “first thing that came out of his house”. If you know anything about the ANE, you’ll realize that what he was in fact saying was “I fully expect my most favorite and important servant to greet me as always; therefore, I promise to sacrifice him to God if God grants me victory”.

Now in the ANE a promise to perform an act in exchange for a favor was a bond as strong as a contract. Having made the pledge on his own initiative, J was a bound to carry it out as if he had signed a legal document in a modern court. Failure to do so would, in the eyes of his community, curse the entire nation and bring untold misery for every person in the community. This is why his daughter told him he had to carry out the pledge, even though it meant the loss of her own life.

The fault for this tragedy lies neither with God nor with any demand that God made. It lay with J who should have never made such a pledge to begin with; firstly, because human sacrifice was not allowable by God and was considered abhorrent under the Law of Moses, and secondly, because he had already been assured of victory; no further “incentive” was required.

So, why does the writer of Hebrews write:

32And what more shall I say? I do not have time to tell about Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel and the prophets, 33who through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, and gained what was promised; who shut the mouths of lions, 34quenched the fury of the flames, and escaped the edge of the sword; whose weakness was turned to strength; and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies.

Because it was through faith that Jephthah took the commission to lead the armies of Israel and it was through faith that he conquered. The odds were against J; no one would have accepted this commission and he certainly had no love for his people who had treated him poorly. Perhaps his promise was an indication of misgivings on his part that maybe he had made a mistake.

But whatever the reason, his flaws and weaknesses, his sins and errors were not the point the writer of Hebrews was making. The writer was not saying that J and the others were without sin or were perfect or that all of their actions had the blessings of God, only that these were men who had faith, and with that faith they accomplished many mighty deeds; they: “conquered kingdoms, administered justice, and gained what was promised;”

Bad comparison, since God did not command or dictate the course of World War II. Human frailties, and actions should not be used to evaluate the goodness of God's actions. God is not limited by human choices of alternatives as to whether God should command the slaughter of women and children.

You're avoiding the question. This was not a question of “what was God’s moral responsibility in WWII it was “what was our moral responsibility. WE killed women and children in that war. WE bombed their cities. WE embargoed food and medicine. Women and children died in that war as a direct result of our actions. Were we immoral or evil for doing this?

You cannot claim that humans are allowed to escape moral responsibility under the blanket of “frailties”. If you wish to judge God, judge yourself and your society first. What is the standard you are using and can you justify it? If your standard says that under the circumstances and given our limitations, our actions in WWII were morally justified, then you must ask why when applied to the ANE and under the circumstances and given the limitations, those actions were not morally justified as well.


God as an omnipotent all-powerful entity is not faced with the moral corrundum of many human moral choices, and these have little to do with the context of the Bible and why God commanded these ethnic cleansings.

You mean that as God, He knows absolutely the necessary, as well as most just, decision to make? If so, then accept the actions described in the Bible were “the most just and necessary decisions”. If you wish to claim that God does NOT know absolutely the necessary and most just decisions to make, then you must state what the most necessary and most just decisions to make actually were. If you do not know what was the most necessary and most just decisions, then you have to admit you are condemning God as being immoral without any evidence to support that judgment; which is itself an immoral action on your part.

If I was God the choice would be a piece of cake.

No, you don’t get to dodge the question in this way. YOU have a choice, what do YOU do?

The point of the question is we can only operate within the limits that circumstances impose.

Further, your reply seems to indicate that you give God carte-blanche to override the free will of everyone on the planet in order to do good. But you have not got that authority. You can only give God carte-blanche to override YOUR free will. You can only do that by giving you life over to Him and putting Him in charge of your life. That is the meaning of Christianity. But you reject Christianity. So how is God to override the free will of everyone on the planet, when you deny Him the right to override even your own?

[Shadow Phoenix]

One thing is sure to me. The God in the Bible simply cannot be describing the God that exists. That God is a hateful, racist and sexist God. Consider the following things: In the Flood story we’re told God wanted to destroy all mankind. In Moses’ day God wanted to destroy all of the Israelites. In Joshua’s day God wanted the Israelites to kill all of the inhabitants of the Promised Land. Saul was told by God to destroy all of the Amalekites. According to Jonah, God was going to destroy the people of Nineveh. God also destroyed and scattered the northern tribes of Israel because he was displeased with them. God allowed the accuser to destroy Job’s health and family life just to win a “bet.” In the New Testament, God will destroy all unbelievers in the lake of fire. He’s a pretty barbaric God, if you ask me. This God is simply the reflection of ancient barbaric peoples.

Ludwig Feuerbach is surely right, God did not make us in his image, human beings made God in their image. Specifically, the ancient people of the Bible constructed their views of God based upon their own barbaric nature.

God decreed that a man who picked up sticks on the Sabbath day was to be stoned to death (Numbers 15:32-36). God commanded that anyone who curses his father or mother was to be put to death (Exodus 21:17). Witches, and those of differing religious views were to be killed (Ex. 22:18,20). These are pretty stiff punishments, eh? This God declares that a slave is the property of another man (Exodus 21:21). God commanded men to divorce their foreign wives for no other reason but that they were not God’s people (Ezra 9), and women were helpless if they weren’t married in those days.

God asked Abraham to kill and sacrifice his son Isaac. If we heard a voice today telling us to do that, we would not think this voice was God’s, although Abraham wasn’t horrified at the suggestion. Enough for now. But example like these are plenty.

Darn. I checked this thread thinking there would be some philosophical argument. Instead I saw, "God disagrees with me. I'm obviously in the right, therefore God is wrong, and if God is wrong, God doesn't exist."

The assumption is always that God is love. There's never mention that he's just. He's holy. He has to punish sin. It's interesting isn't it that skeptics complain about all the evil in the world, but when God punishes evil, they complain about that as well!

And furthermore, if morality stems from any god, how can we be more moral than this god? An effect can't be greater than its cause.

[Duder]

God as described in the bible has authority over life and death. As such he has the moral scope to decide the who, how and when people should die. You seem to be coming from a "if you or I did X it would be abominable" perspective that is simply not transferrable to God as he is described in the bible.

Essentially your argument "God can't be the God of the bible due to violation of standard X" doesn't work, because your standard doesn't apply to God.



There's nothing to indicate that Abraham thought this was normal or that he was particularly happy about it. All we are given is an account of the instruction given and his obedience to it.

Also contrary to your suggestion, I believe if God chose to command you to do something as important as what he asked of Abraham, you'd _know_ it was him, regardless of what was said. I also doubt that you have met anyone that has as close a relationship with God as Abraham has (has, not had intentional). The reason you may not attribute the voice to God (when it is God) is that you don't recognise his voice (as Abraham would have).

Hello, Grubbcm -

First, I agree that John has not proved his point that the God of the Bible who possesses such objectionable qualities, does not exist. This being is logically possible in principle so long as we do not find that the Biblical descriptions of Him contradict each other. We do find that the God of the Bible demonstrates love and justice, but these qualities seem to be counterbalanced by an equal measure of hatred and injustice.

On the loving nature of the Biblical God, Walter Kaufman writes:


Why should God have so ordered the world that all men were headed for everlasting damnation and that he was unable to help them except by begetting a son with a woman betrothed to Joseph, and then by having this son betrayed and crucified. . . and by saving only that small minority among men who first heard this story and then believed it? Surely, such a God is not an unequivocal symbol of love. Indeed, if human terms are to be applied to this God analogously, he would appear at least as interested in bizarre effects, shrouded in an air of mystery, and in dire vengeance on all who fail to believe what is exceedingly difficult to believe, as he could possibly be said to be concerned with demonstrating the significance of love.

As long as we cling to the conception of hell, God is not love in any human sense - and least of all love in the human sense raised to the highest potecy of perfection. 1


Christianity preaches that love is divine and points to Jesus as the incarnation of love; but a Buddhist, and not only a Buddhist, might well say that the sacrifice of a few hours crucifiction followed by everlasting bliss at the right hand of God in heaven, while millions are suffering eternal tortures in hell, is hardly the best possible symbol of love and self-sacrifice. 2


God elects a few for salvation. They do not deserve this: the grace of God would not be gratia if it were not gratis. Yet the damned cannot complain that God is unjust, for no man receives a worse lot than he deserves, only some receive a better lot, and this shows God's infinite mercy.

No student would be in doubt for a moment what to think of the justice of a teacher who gave a test that everybody failed and then nevertheless gave a few of his students "excellent". . . . This is precisely what we mean by injustice. 3

I think Kaufman makes the point that the God of the Bible cannot be the perfect Form of love and justice. And indeed He is not. This idea that He is perfect love and justice came, I think, when Paul and the evangelist John infused Christianity with Greek concepts of perfect trascendental forms. The medieval Christian philosophers further strengthened this Christian-Greek synthesis to show us a God omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and perfectly loving and just. But that is not the God of Israel, Isaac and Jacob as we find Him in the whole Biblical literature.

Your answer that God only appears to us as unjust and unloving because His love is of an altogether different kind does not hold water. If we say that human conceptions of love are only a shadowy outline of what divine love is all about, then human love must be at least similar in some respects to divine love. But in the God of the Bible we find qualities that are directly opposed to what we mean by love, so that we are tempted to think that divine love is nothing at all like human love. But if this were the case, why should we call both of them love if they are are so completely dissimilar?

I think we have to make a choice between the God of the Bible who is capricious and arbitrary, and the more modern God of the philosophers who is described in terms of perfect ideals. The two cannot be the same. Can we not think that God is perfect, but that the ancient writers of scripture did not yet apprehend the meaning of perfection, and that for that reason they painted for us a picture of an imperfect God?


_______________

1 Walter Kaufman. Critique of Religion and Philosophy. New York: Doubleday, 1961. 200- 201

2 ibid, 202

3 ibid, 204

[Duder]

God as described in the bible has authority over life and death. As such he has the moral scope to decide the who, how and when people should die. You seem to be coming from a "if you or I did X it would be abominable" perspective that is simply not transferrable to God as he is described in the bible.

Essentially your argument "God can't be the God of the bible due to violation of standard X" doesn't work, because your standard doesn't apply to God.



There's nothing to indicate that Abraham thought this was normal or that he was particularly happy about it. All we are given is an account of the instruction given and his obedience to it.

Also contrary to your suggestion, I believe if God chose to command you to do something as important as what he asked of Abraham, you'd _know_ it was him, regardless of what was said. I also doubt that you have met anyone that has as close a relationship with God as Abraham has (has, not had intentional). The reason you may not attribute the voice to God (when it is God) is that you don't recognise his voice (as Abraham would have).

Hello, Grubbcm -

First, I agree that John has not proved his point that the God of the Bible, who possesses such objectionable qualities, does not exist. This being is logically possible in principle. He could exist.

We do find that the God of the Bible demonstrates love and justice, but these qualities seem to be counterbalanced by an equal measure of hatred and injustice. On the loving nature of the Biblical God, Walter Kaufman writes:


Why should God have so ordered the world that all men were headed for everlasting damnation and that he was unable to help them except by begetting a son with a woman betrothed to Joseph, and then by having this son betrayed and crucified. . . and by saving only that small minority among men who first heard this story and then believed it? Surely, such a God is not an unequivocal symbol of love. Indeed, if human terms are to be applied to this God analogously, he would appear at least as interested in bizarre effects, shrouded in an air of mystery, and in dire vengeance on all who fail to believe what is exceedingly difficult to believe, as he could possibly be said to be concerned with demonstrating the significance of love.

As long as we cling to the conception of hell, God is not love in any human sense - and least of all love in the human sense raised to the highest potecy of perfection. 1


Christianity preaches that love is divine and points to Jesus as the incarnation of love; but a Buddhist, and not only a Buddhist, might well say that the sacrifice of a few hours crucifiction followed by everlasting bliss at the right hand of God in heaven, while millions are suffering eternal tortures in hell, is hardly the best possible symbol of love and self-sacrifice. 2


God elects a few for salvation. They do not deserve this: the grace of God would not be gratia if it were not gratis. Yet the damned cannot complain that God is unjust, for no man receives a worse lot than he deserves, only some receive a better lot, and this shows God's infinite mercy.

No student would be in doubt for a moment what to think of the justice of a teacher who gave a test that everybody failed and then nevertheless gave a few of his students "excellent". . . . This is precisely what we mean by injustice. 3

I think Kaufman makes the point that the God of the Bible cannot be the perfect Form of love and justice. And indeed He is not. This idea that He is perfect love and justice came, I think, when Paul and the evangelist John began to infuse Christianity with Greek concepts of perfect trascendental forms. The medieval Christian philosophers further strengthened this Christian-Greek synthesis to show us a God omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and perfectly loving and just. But that is not the God of Israel, Isaac and Jacob as we find Him in the whole Biblical literature.

Your answer that God only appears to us as unjust and unloving because His love is of an altogether different kind does not hold water. If we say that human conceptions of love are only a shadowy outline of what divine love is all about, then human love must be at least similar in some respects to divine love. But in the God of the Bible we find qualities that are directly opposed to what we mean by love, so that we are tempted to think that divine love is nothing at all like human love. But if this were the case, why should we call both of them love if they are are so completely dissimilar?

I think we have to make a choice between the God of the Bible who is capricious and arbitrary, and the more modern God of the philosophers who is described in terms of perfect ideals. The two cannot be the same. Can we not think that God is perfect, but that the ancient writers of scripture did not yet apprehend the meaning of perfection, and for that reason they painted for us a picture of an imperfect God in their writing?


_______________

1 Walter Kaufman. Critique of Religion and Philosophy. New York: Doubleday, 1961. 200- 201

2 ibid, 202

3 ibid, 204

[FirstSunday33ad]

What, you liked your reply you had to say it twice, Duder? :teeth:

There is something in what you say, but I would expand your point to mean, the writers of the OT wrote of God as was revealed to them. From their world view such a revelation made sense and was consistent with what they saw going on around them. It is significant that the Hebrews only found cause to question this view of God once, in Job.

After Christ, it is to be expected that the revelation of God would change. The Law Giver and Upholder passed into history and the face of God we know today came to the fore; the loving and compassionate God who did not punish directly.

Did God change? No, rather we did. Before we had the Law and lived under the Law. After we had Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit.

[Doubting John]

"First, I agree that John has not proved his point that the God of the Bible who possesses such objectionable qualities, does not exist."


Hmmmm. What exactly do you think I was trying to show, anyway?

You summed up what I was trying to show here:

"I think we have to make a choice between the God of the Bible who is capricious and arbitrary, and the more modern God of the philosophers who is described in terms of perfect ideals. The two cannot be the same."


The two cannot be the same. And since the former Biblical God isn't the real God, then the modern God of the philosophers is a better candidate. The former one was a projection of ancient superstitious barbaric people. That God never existed.

[Babaloo]

Hello, Grubbcm - I think we have to make a choice between the God of the Bible who is capricious and arbitrary, and the more modern God of the philosophers who is described in terms of perfect ideals. The two cannot be the same. Can we not think that God is perfect, but that the ancient writers of scripture did not yet apprehend the meaning of perfection, and for that reason they painted for us a picture of an imperfect God in their writing?

Hi Duder, So, you're saying that you believe an ancient bronze age people received a special revelation from a perfect God, but they were only capable of drawing imperfect pictures of that God in their special revelations received from that perfect God?

Such an excuse proves equally useful to defenders of any and all "imperfect" "specially revealled books" of the past or present, from the intertestamental works included in the Catholic Bible (including intertestamental works not included in the Catholic Bible) all the way to modern "holy books" like The Book of Urantia.

In the case of how the ancient Hebrews pictured the cosmos, you could also extend such an admission to include that they "painted for us an imperfect picture of creation and of the shape of the cosmos." Well, yes, they did: http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/geocentrism/cosmology.html

[shunyadragon]

Yet you have no justification for this worldview and you are unable to back these statements up beyond simple argument by outrage. Your opinion is no different from those who declare that Hiroshima was an immoral act but who ignore the fact that the alternative was far, far worse.

You don’t LIKE the accounts in the Bible. Fine and dandy, neither do I; but you fail in offering up a reasonable workable alternative as to what should have been done – given the circumstances and limitations of the time. You cannot wave away the requirements of free will and justice. Was there a course of action that would have resulted in the same effect but would have avoided the means? Would this means have been just and would it have respected the freewill of those involved?


You are still comparing the immoral acts of falable humans with those of an omnipotent all-powerful God. I do not believe these comparisons are justified.

Unless you can competently answer that question, you are unqualified to say that God is “jealous, vindictive, arbitrary and ruthless”. To continue to do so only regulates you to the role of bigot.

Character smears are not really justified. I do not believe God is “jealous, vindictive, arbitrary and ruthless”. I believe the mythical primative image of God in the Bible is. There are perfectly good moral and ethical standards available in the world today to determine this.

It is not bigoted to say that God is not bound by the constraints of human weakneses in his actions, and his actions should not be compared to humans.


God is loving and compassionate, but He is also just. The accounts given in the Bible are not “worldviews” they are statements of God’s just nature. Crimes are punishable – we accept this as moral. Crimes against God therefore are equally punishable and equally moral; but God most often withholds punishment out of mercy. But when these crimes are not just against God but threaten the survival and redemption of all of humanity, God does act; He brings about the divine judgment that is just and right and removes the threat to mankind’s salvation.

The accounts in the Bible are accounts of instances of people being punished for crimes against God and who, if they were permitted to continue, would have prevented the salvation of the planet – past, present and future.

I think it was a punishment that was well deserved and it was just.

You are making a very sad unfortunate value judgement that these acts carried out by the Hebrews were just. This is the same justification people commited acts of atrocities in different religions since. If youthink it is justified to put humans on the same standard as God, than by this measure the atrocities of humans can be justified in the name of God. As human acts justified by the Hebrews in the name of God they part and partial the average fair for the day considering primative peoples behavior. You may not agree, but your condemnation of me making value judgements is not justified, since in this thread you have also made value judgements. We may not agree, but this is not grounds for condemning others.

What has Jephathah got to do with Abraham? God did not command Jephathah to sacrifice his daughter, this was his own idea.

If you read the account you will notice that God does not speak directly at all. Jephathah took it upon himself to make the promise to God to sacrifice the “first thing that came out of his house”. If you know anything about the ANE, you’ll realize that what he was in fact saying was “I fully expect my most favorite and important servant to greet me as always; therefore, I promise to sacrifice him to God if God grants me victory”.

Now in the ANE a promise to perform an act in exchange for a favor was a bond as strong as a contract. Having made the pledge on his own initiative, J was a bound to carry it out as if he had signed a legal document in a modern court. Failure to do so would, in the eyes of his community, curse the entire nation and bring untold misery for every person in the community. This is why his daughter told him he had to carry out the pledge, even though it meant the loss of her own life.

The fault for this tragedy lies neither with God nor with any demand that God made. It lay with J who should have never made such a pledge to begin with; firstly, because human sacrifice was not allowable by God and was considered abhorrent under the Law of Moses, and secondly, because he had already been assured of victory; no further “incentive” was required.

So, why does the writer of Hebrews write:

32And what more shall I say? I do not have time to tell about Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel and the prophets, 33who through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, and gained what was promised; who shut the mouths of lions, 34quenched the fury of the flames, and escaped the edge of the sword; whose weakness was turned to strength; and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies.

Because it was through faith that Jephthah took the commission to lead the armies of Israel and it was through faith that he conquered. The odds were against J; no one would have accepted this commission and he certainly had no love for his people who had treated him poorly. Perhaps his promise was an indication of misgivings on his part that maybe he had made a mistake.

But whatever the reason, his flaws and weaknesses, his sins and errors were not the point the writer of Hebrews was making. The writer was not saying that J and the others were without sin or were perfect or that all of their actions had the blessings of God, only that these were men who had faith, and with that faith they accomplished many mighty deeds; they: “conquered kingdoms, administered justice, and gained what was promised;”

Jephathah was never condemned for his actions, but praised as a great man of God. The human sacrafice was done without condemnation. He was remorseful that he did it, but the circumstances of the sacrafice still stand and the fact that he was praised as a great man of God in the NT and his sacrafice of his daughter was not even considered questionable.

You're avoiding the question. This was not a question of “what was God’s moral responsibility in WWII it was “what was our moral responsibility. WE killed women and children in that war. WE bombed their cities. WE embargoed food and medicine. Women and children died in that war as a direct result of our actions. Were we immoral or evil for doing this?

You cannot claim that humans are allowed to escape moral responsibility under the blanket of “frailties”. If you wish to judge God, judge yourself and your society first. What is the standard you are using and can you justify it? If your standard says that under the circumstances and given our limitations, our actions in WWII were morally justified, then you must ask why when applied to the ANE and under the circumstances and given the limitations, those actions were not morally justified as well.

Not avoiding the question at all. I feel it is very wrong and history is a witness of making any value comparisons of justifying or evaluating human actions and weaknesses with those of God's. I do not consider many human acts of war morally justified, but that is a 'red herring' when trying to comare a weak falable human with an omnipotent ALL-POWERFUL God.


You mean that as God, He knows absolutely the necessary, as well as most just, decision to make? If so, then accept the actions described in the Bible were “the most just and necessary decisions”. If you wish to claim that God does NOT know absolutely the necessary and most just decisions to make, then you must state what the most necessary and most just decisions to make actually were. If you do not know what was the most necessary and most just decisions, then you have to admit you are condemning God as being immoral without any evidence to support that judgment; which is itself an immoral action on your part.

No immoral act on my part. Your passing the buck is not justified. I must not state what is the most necessary and the most just decisions, but I can say that God being all-powerful entity is capable of providing an alternative if God wishes too. Remember I do not believe these in reality are the actions of God. I consider them the acts of the Hebrew people justified in the name of God, which is common in history and not justified.

No, you don’t get to dodge the question in this way. YOU have a choice, what do YOU do?

Telling you what I would do does not justify or judge the acts of an omnipotent all-powerful God. Yes, I would handle many of these situations differently, but I am human and different humans will make different moral judgements in these cases since human morals and ethics are subjective and variable.

The point of the question is we can only operate within the limits that circumstances impose.

We of course can, but than again we are not God.

Further, your reply seems to indicate that you give God carte-blanche to override the free will of everyone on the planet in order to do good. But you have not got that authority. You can only give God carte-blanche to override YOUR free will. You can only do that by giving you life over to Him and putting Him in charge of your life. That is the meaning of Christianity. But you reject Christianity. So how is God to override the free will of everyone on the planet, when you deny Him the right to override even your own?

I do not need to give God carte-blanche. God already has it. Biblically he actually does this in many instances and is perfectly capable of doing it when ever he choses. That part of my argument.

I do not reject Christianity. This is the common egocentric claim that translates into, 'Since you do not believe as I do, you reject Christianity.'

I believe I have put God in charge of my life, and I have submitted my will to God, but not the ancient image of a God of a primative people.

I do not deny God can override the freewill of everyone, including myself. That is part of main point of my argument, which you have dodged. God is capable of alternatives and solutions without commanding barbaric attrocities, because God is not limited to the constraints and weakness of humans.

You unfortunately consider the God of the OT very real and justified. I do not. I consider these acts the acts of a primative people justifying them in the name of God. I am able to put the Bible into the context of history and understand that the God portrayed in the Bible is not God, but the image of God in the eyes of the people at the time.

[Duder]

Hi Duder, So, you're saying that you believe an ancient bronze age people received a special revelation from a perfect God, but they were only capable of drawing imperfect pictures of that God in their special revelations received from that perfect God?

Hi, Babaloo -

That's more or less in the same ballpark with what I was saying. I might not have called what these Bronze Age mystics received a special revelation as such. It's possible it was a general revelation which was apprehended also by the authors of the Upanishads and the Sutras, but which was colored and varied by divergent cultures and by the psychologies and styles of individuals.

Such an excuse proves equally useful to defenders of any and all "imperfect" "specially revealled books" of the past or present, from the intertestamental works included in the Catholic Bible (including intertestamental works not included in the Catholic Bible) all the way to modern "holy books" like The Book of Urantia.

From what I have seen of Urantia, it is not on a par with great world scriptures like the Koran, the Upanishads, the Sutras or the Bible. I think the essential difference is that the great world scriptures were written within contexts of established traditions handed down orally from long before the authors wrote them. Scripture is often revolutionary, novel and innovative, but it is grounded in something - Urantria seems cut from whole cloth. It may have some good things to say, but you have to see it as being on the far fringes of "sacred writing" at best.

Urantia aside, I think you are saying that my idea proves too much. How can both Judeo-Christian and Buddhist writings be true? The answer to that question is found in a different level of truth than appears immediately on the surface. What you have to do with these books is live with them. You read them and feel them, non-judgementally. One gains an intuitive awareness of the material that goes much deeper than what the naked propositions in them say. Of course Adam did not really get into trouble by eating a piece of fruit which he picked from an actual tree. That is 5-year-old Sunday school stuff. But what does it mean that he ate the fruit? I could write a very long essay on what it means that he ate the fruit, but when all is said and done, all I will have written is mere straw next to the words just as they are in Genesis. You have to get in it and feel it. That may not be very satisfying to one who wants to be told precisely what is what in straight-up, unequivocal language, and if you have not experience the scriptures at the level I am talking about, then you probably see nothing in them but superstitious nonsense. If that is the case then I'd say you're making the same error as the religious fundamentalists - taking the surface and ignoring the depth.

But when you do live with these various scriptures, you find that they are not discordant, and you can see how one and the same revelation may be behind them.

In the case of how the ancient Hebrews pictured the cosmos, you could also extend such an admission to include that they "painted for us an imperfect picture of creation and of the shape of the cosmos." Well, yes, they did: http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/geocentrism/cosmology.html


Again, this is the same mistake being made by the religious naive. They expect their holy books to teach science, and so of course they end up trying to believe the absurd.

[Tophet]

It wasn't genocide. But that is beside the point. You seem to assume the amelakites where just sitting around minding their own business.

For someone educated as a minister, I suggest you go and ask for your money back.


Interesting assertion. I would be impressed if you could tell me what the people that were killed where like culturally and then explain why the killing of them is so bad.


Clearly you are ignorant of how the collectivist culture of the time thought. No such innocents existed. But again, Go ask for your bible college money back.


Perhaps you should explain what the alternative is.

Are you sure you are not making this "I was a minister" stuff up. You seem pretty ignorant for someone who was given an education. Either the bible college you went to is a joke, you didn't go, or else you do know the answer and are just seeking to destroy the faith of others.

So which is it ?

Jason

Hi, Jason:

Isn't it interesting that John has avoided answering you?

In his own book he admits his ignorance:

Am I to be blamed because I couldn’t understand traditional Christianity? I tried with everything in me. I even spent several years earning three master’s degrees and studies in a Ph.D. program to figure my faith out.

and

"I lack the scholarship to deal adequately with all of the issues involved."

And the essay that J.P. Holding posts here:

http://www.tektonics.org/af/djresp1.htm

demonstrates how ignorant he is of the Christian faith. :wink:

[Doubting John]

How in God's name, Tophet, can you ever claim to properly understand the Bible, when you cannot understand what I write in it's context?

You ought to look into this.

You lack the capability to understand, much less to respond intelligently.

[Tophet]

How in God's name, Tophet,

But John, you don't believe in God. Remember?

can you ever claim to properly understand the Bible, when you cannot understand what I write in it's context?

"It's" is a contraction, John. It is not a possessive. I've corrected you on this before. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

You ought to look into this.

You ought to look into taking a spelling class. :tongue:

You lack the capability to understand, much less to respond intelligently.

Yes, yes, another ad hominem. You know what that is, don't you, John?

:yawn:

[Shadow Phoenix]

Hi Duder, So, you're saying that you believe an ancient bronze age people received a special revelation from a perfect God, but they were only capable of drawing imperfect pictures of that God in their special revelations received from that perfect God?

Hello Babaloo. I just read your post and I was immediately struck by the idea of what JPHolding has called "APAS" (Ancient People Are Stupid) Technically, it's known as arugment ad annis, but I like his name more.

Anyhow, they were Bronze Age People. So? What does that have to do with anything? All you're doing is trying to find truth solely by the calendar.

Now as for imperfect pictures, I will say that what we have is perfectly accurate in the truth that it presents, but not complete. How could it ever be? We're dealing with an infinite God. In fact, Aquinas stated that the way we have to speak about God is analogically.

Such an excuse proves equally useful to defenders of any and all "imperfect" "specially revealled books" of the past or present, from the intertestamental works included in the Catholic Bible (including intertestamental works not included in the Catholic Bible) all the way to modern "holy books" like The Book of Urantia.

Except I don't use that excuse. All the Bible records is true, but the Bible does not record all truth. It couldn't be any other way. Abraham and Moses did not have Bibles for instance, yet are recording as knowing some truth. I'm reminded of G.K. Chesterton's being asked if he was stranded on a desert island, what book he'd want. Everyone was shocked when he didn't say the Bible but "Thomas's Guide to Shipbuilding." (I might have the name wrong but the idea is there.) In the same way, if I was studying for a math test, I'd want a math textbook and not the Bible.

And yes, men can come with great ideas apart from reading the Bible. I'd say the thoughts of Aristotle and Plato are brilliant. The Greeks gave us a lot of good stuff. However, the later apologists of the early church realized that Plato and Aristotle were grasping in the dark compared to Jesus.

In the case of how the ancient Hebrews pictured the cosmos, you could also extend such an admission to include that they "painted for us an imperfect picture of creation and of the shape of the cosmos." Well, yes, they did: http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/geocentrism/cosmology.html

Alright. Now that one made me giggle a bit. Remember that angels are also imaged as stars and you're talking about apocalyptic imagery? Also, in a pre-science age, I don't expect post-scientific wording to be used. What I saw really didn't bother me. Instead, I give my thanks for strengthening my faith.

[FirstSunday33ad]

You are making a very sad unfortunate value judgement that these acts carried out by the Hebrews were just. This is the same justification people commited acts of atrocities in different religions since. If youthink it is justified to put humans on the same standard as God, than by this measure the atrocities of humans can be justified in the name of God. As human acts justified by the Hebrews in the name of God they part and partial the average fair for the day considering primative peoples behavior. You may not agree, but your condemnation of me making value judgements is not justified, since in this thread you have also made value judgements. We may not agree, but this is not grounds for condemning others.

This is the nut of our argument, so I will reply to this. The other points, although interesting topics of discussion, are not entirely in keeping with the point.

Naturally, sans Dieu the behavior of the Hebrews although in keeping with the behavior of the times is open to question. They would not be on par with many of Alexander the Great's many atrocities and barbarities but they would require justification nonetheless.

But sans Dieu neither you nor I are justified in condemning the Hebrews. They acted as was sufficient for them at the time. Sans Dieu, morality becomes just a word used to describe behavior we either like or don't like, nothing else. And this behavior changes with time and place.

Nevertheless, were the Hebrews justified in their actions? Here are the facts of the case:

1) The people put to death were Jews who descended from Esau; meaning that they were part of the covenant with Abraham. This gave the Hebrews the legal authority to hold them responsible for their actions.

2) The Amalikites waged unceasing war against the Hebrews from the moment that they entered the Promised Land.

3) The language in the Bible is hyperbole; those "exterminated" were a tribe that lived in a valley in the midst of the Hebrews making them a continuous and clear danger. Amalikites outside this area were not affected.

4) Killing only the warriors of a tribe only deferred a problem for a few years. In 5, 10, 20 or more years children would grow up, become warriors and launch new attacks on the people responsible for the earlier disaster.

5) Killing women and children can be argued as being the most merciful action given the circumstances of the time. In a patriarchal society removing the men is the equivalent of leaving women and children defenseless in hostile territory.

6) Slavery is only possible in a sophisticated society that is capable of policing its slaves. The Hebrews had not reached this level of sophistication at the time of David.

So yes, even sans Dieu what the Hebrews did was both justifiable and acceptable given the circumstances of the times.

[Doubting John]

Tophet,

I try very hard, but sometimes I'm unsuccessful at doing so, to respond only to intelligent questions and comments. That's why I don't respond to your posts by answering them. By the way, see my new signature. I have credited you with bringing me on TWEB with a vengeance. Congratulations!

FirstSunday33ad wrote:

4) Killing only the warriors of a tribe only deferred a problem for a few years. In 5, 10, 20 or more years children would grow up, become warriors and launch new attacks on the people responsible for the earlier disaster.

5) Killing women and children can be argued as being the most merciful action given the circumstances of the time. In a patriarchal society removing the men is the equivalent of leaving women and children defenseless in hostile territory.

6) Slavery is only possible in a sophisticated society that is capable of policing its slaves. The Hebrews had not reached this level of sophistication at the time of David.

Point #4 is the rationale for genocide. So, with the militant Muslim problem we have in Palestine and other places around the world, should we just nuke 'em?

Point #5. Genocide of these innocents is merciful? Did anyone ask them what they preferred? I think if it were me I would have preferred to stay alive, and I don't think anyone of them would have disagreed. They'd find a way--together.

Point #6. But had the Hebrews reached that level of sophistication you would have recommend that option? Hmmm. Really? As an agnostic I can think of better options. 1) Offer them work; 2) Re-located them somewhere; 3) Re-build their land like Americans did to Japan and are trying to do with Iraq. Are you saying that God didn't think of these things to tell the Hebrews?


I've read of the justifications for gladiator contests in ancient Rome, as well as the justifications for the wanton slaughter of the American Indians, and the enslavement of African slaves brought to America. What you're suggesting is offering the same twisted logic. But you offer this in the name of your God? What kind of God do you serve? If you serve the God of the Bible, which never existed, then I can understand why you'd suggested these things. But then, you've stepped back in time to argue for uncivilized and barbaric actions.

My advice to you is to reject this God of the Bible and step up to humanitarianism and civilization. To continue to justify that God is only to stay in barbarism.

[jpholding]

Good grief, DJ, do you ever do any homework?




Point #4 is the rationale for genocide. So, with the militant Muslim problem we have in Palestine and other places around the world, should we just nuke 'em?

Fortunately, unlike ancient people, we DO have technological options for control of deviant populations who refuse to repent of parasitic or terroristic behavior. Try to keep this in mind, eh? Ancient Israel did not have infrared sensors to detect night raiders coming over the border to kill them, etc. Kapish?


Point #5. Genocide of these innocents is merciful? Did anyone ask them what they preferred?

No need, they tell us through their actions what they preferred:

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/rbutcher1.html

Frequently in antiquity, people would commit suicide rather than become foreign slaves (whose lot was quite different from home-born servants). Whole groups of peoples would kill themselves when captured, to avoid this horrible fate. Bradley mentions some of the more vivid instances [HI:SASR:44f]

· Most of the Spanish tribe of the Cantabri (22 BC) killed themselves when enslaved by Rome, cutting their own throats, drinking poison, or setting fire to their huts and dying in the flames

· The inhabitants of Xanthus (in Lycia) undertook mass suicide three times! (after being captured by Cyrus the Great, Alexander the Great, and M. Brutus)

· 400 Roman soldiers killed themselves at the point of capture by the Frisii (28 AD)

· The Dacians killed themselves in preference to being enslaved by Trajan.

In these cases, people obviously preferred a rapid death rather than even life-in-slavery (much less slow-death-in-the-desert). Why would we assume the Amalekite women and children would feel differently--especially in a culture that dealt in slave trading and apparently abused its slaves as well.

I guess DJ is a cultural neophyte who thinks that Japanese honor suicides are stupid. :lolo:

I think if it were me I would have preferred to stay alive, and I don't think anyone of them would have disagreed. They'd find a way--together.

What can we say? You're just incredibly shortsighted and ignorant of life in the ancient world.

Hmmm. Really? As an agnostic I can think of better options. 1) Offer them work;

Sorry -- as noted, these folks tended to prefer death to work for a foreign power. That's because it was so humiliating to them, and shame was worse than death in their view (think again, Japanese suicides over loss of honor).


2) Re-located them somewhere

And displace whom in the process, DJ?

3) Re-build their land like Americans did to Japan and are trying to do with Iraq.

You've got to be kidding. From the same item:

Option 2: Take them back and turn them over to social relief programs/processes in Israel (or anywhere else, for that matter):

Similar problem here: there were no social relief programs/processes adequate to take care of this many dependent people. [Remember, most of these people would have been nomadic dependents (without agricultural or industrial skills) or minor children (consumers without the ability to contribute to their upkeep), at a time before the agricultural surpluses of Israel could support such a large group of resident aliens. As marauders, the Amalekites did amass some gold (1 Chr 18.11) and livestock, but God forbade the Israelite soldiers to take this with them as spoils of war (probably so Israel would not get a 'taste' of raiding other nations for booty, and become like the Amalekites).

There were no social relief, welfare, or benevolent resources ANYWHERE in the ANE, even in the "wealthiest" of nations. Even elderly care was a major issue, but not addressed by the public sector. There simply was not enough resource surplus or infrastructure available to do this:

· "In spite of the government's propaganda concern for widows and orphans, there was no systematic welfare system. The institution that dealt with the problem of young families bereft of a father and husband is called the a-r u-a, meaning 'dedicated.' Women and children were 'dedicated' by relatives who could no longer support them or by themselves, and they were employed especially in weaving and processing wool. Because we have several detailed records of such persons, we know that they usually did not live long after they had been dedicated, probably owing to the wretched conditions in which they lived and worked. ...Women weavers were exploited extensively at Lagas; their children no doubt died at a high rate: one group of 679 women had only 103 children, though other groups had more. " [OT:LIANE:35]

· "Ancient society has fewer elderly, it is true, but they existed nonetheless, and had to be supported along with many children, most of whom would not survive to adulthood." [OT:CEANE:2]

· "While it is true, as Van Driel points out, that life in the ancient Near East was in general much shorter and death much quicker, even the few that survived into old age, or lingered on in a slow decline of physical and mental powers, would have placed a huge burden on an economy that knew more scarcity than surplus." [OT:CEANE:241]

· "Care of the aged does not form a separate category in the law codes; indeed, there is not a single law that deals with the subject directly." [OT:CEANE:241]

· "Nonetheless, all the contributors stress that the role of the public sector was limited." [OT:CEANE:244)

Let's be VERY clear about this. We take these for granted and they simply did NOT exist in the ancient world. This was NOT in any sense an option for this situation.

Are you saying that God didn't think of these things to tell the Hebrews?

Yeah, He also forgot to tell them to take a plane to the New World. :ahem:

My advice to you is to reject this God of the Bible and step up to humanitarianism and civilization. To continue to justify that God is only to stay in barbarism.

My advice to you, DJ, is to do some homework and stop being such a cultural bigot.

[jpholding]

Maybe a case for cosmic entrapment?

Good grief, who opened your cage?

***********

Our "modern-day courts of law" have some pretty detailed descriptions of what constitutes "entrapment", and this doesn't fit it, even if the purpose of the Tree was to test/tempt the obedience of the First Couple.

Entrapment as a defense first was brought up in the case of Sorrells vs. United States in the late 1870s. Since then, there has been quite a bit of discussion and definition about it, but it is fully agreed that "entrapment" only occurs when an official intends by actions or words to encourage someone to commit a crime, exercising direct influence upon them in some fashion. To quote the definition from that case: "Entrapment is the conception and planning of an offense by an officer, and his procurement of its commission by one who would not have perpetrated it except for the trickery, persuasion, or fraud of the officer." Let's illustrate with some practical examples:

1. A police officer who leaves a bale of marijuana in the street and orders people who see him do it not to touch it or smoke it is not engaged in entrapment.

2. A police officer who leaves a bale of marijuana in the street and says nothing to anyone about it, but instead waits around to see if anyone picks it up or smokes it, may be engaged in entrapment. This is where the courts have had a lot of discussion, but entrapment is more likely to stick as a defense if the person who ends up committing the crime is not inclined to commit such crimes in the first place or has no record of committing the crime, and yet the officer does something to actively encourage the crime. (I.e., "Hey, wanna smoke some dope?" -- repeated even after refusals!)

3. On the other hand, "If the accused is found to be predisposed, the defense of entrapment may not prevail." Thus, "sting" operations are not considered to be entrapment.

So which of these fits the Garden situation? The first one does, but of course we would never see any police officer do such a thing anyway! Sam and Co. might see the second as what actually happened, but they would have a hard time justifying that, unless they could prove that God made the Tree of Knowledge thoroughly irresistible, or Himself encouraged them to disobey His command, and we have no indication that that is the case. In fact, if ANYONE is guilty of entrapment in the story, it's the serpent! Sorry, but the lawyers would laugh this entrapment defense right out of court!

[FirstSunday33ad]

Point #4 is the rationale for genocide. So, with the militant Muslim problem we have in Palestine and other places around the world, should we just nuke 'em?

This is rationale for no such thing; it was rather a fact of life for ancient cultures. A conflict did not end with a simple negotiated settlement. Each defeat required an act of vengeance; every victory sowed the seeds for a future conflict. The Hebrews came into conflict with the Amalikites when they first moved into the Promised Land and were still fighting them 300 years later. Conflicts like these often did result in the annihilation of one or the other culture.

To apply the same rationale to today’s conflicts would be asinine. Entire cultures today do not engage in the same degree of vendetta and revenge that occurred in the ANE, therefore such a response is unnecessary and unwarranted.

Point #5. Genocide of these innocents is merciful? Did anyone ask them what they preferred? I think if it were me I would have preferred to stay alive, and I don't think anyone of them would have disagreed. They'd find a way--together.

Yours is an embarrassingly modern reply to an ancient condition. They “would have found a way – together”???….uh, no they would not. As JP pointed out, had the Hebrews asked the women and children what they preferred, it is no stretch of the imagination to say that they would have preferred death.

But even if that were not the case, the Hebrews had no structure in place to police a large hostile population living in their midst. Within a few years, they would have had to fight the Amalikite men all over again; only this time from within their very borders.

Point #6. But had the Hebrews reached that level of sophistication you would have recommend that option? Hmmm. Really? As an agnostic I can think of better options. 1) Offer them work; 2) Re-located them somewhere; 3) Re-build their land like Americans did to Japan and are trying to do with Iraq. Are you saying that God didn't think of these things to tell the Hebrews?

Several problems should be immediately obvious to you regarding your scenarios:

1) Offer them work – in other words “make them slaves”? Again the Hebrews had no structure in place to police a large hostile population living in their midst. To offer your most hated enemy who has sought nothing but your destruction for the past 300 years the status of “freemen” within your borders would be suicide.

2) Re-locate them? Deportation of suspect and hostile peoples was only feasible within large empires with large, professional standing armies. Even then, very few empires of the ANE were capable of mounting the effort: the Assyrian, the Babylonian and the Persian. The Hebrews had neither the area nor the available forces in which to deport the Amalikites.

3) Re-build their lands like the Americans did with Japan? Your statement is so bad, so unbelieveably out of touch with the time you are speaking about that I could only stare in stunned silence. All I can say is "you can't be serious".

I've read of the justifications for gladiator contests in ancient Rome, as well as the justifications for the wanton slaughter of the American Indians, and the enslavement of African slaves brought to America. What you're suggesting is offering the same twisted logic. But you offer this in the name of your God? What kind of God do you serve? If you serve the God of the Bible, which never existed, then I can understand why you'd suggested these things. But then, you've stepped back in time to argue for uncivilized and barbaric actions.

I doubt very much you have read justifications for the gladiator contests, for the wars of western expansionism or for industrial slavery; or at least if you have, they came from those on the extreme fringe of society. But that aside, an argument from outrage, especially one constructed on the freedoms and choices of the 21st century is ridiculous when speaking of the ancient world.

You are living in a time of hyper-individualism; so individualistic that when members of the same family sit down to eat they each eat different foods. You have absolutely no idea of the times you are criticizing and you are utterly unqualified to pass judgment on their actions.

My advice to you is to reject this God of the Bible and step up to humanitarianism and civilization. To continue to justify that God is only to stay in barbarism.

My advice to you is to stop commenting on subjects that you have absolutely no knowledge on and to stick to those subjects in which you are informed.

[Babaloo]

Hi, Babaloo - <snip> The mistake being made by the religious naive: They expect their holy books to teach science, and so of course they end up trying to believe the absurd.

I agree with your earler reply, Duder. You should look for what's best in each book and each person (religious or not), and admit there are questionable absurdities in books and people as well. You sound well beyond the clutches of authoritarianism of any coercive sort, certainly not that of any one religion, denomination or church telling you what to believe. In fact you sound like Thomas Jefferson who wrote:

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789)

Cheers,
Ed

[shunyadragon]

This is the nut of our argument, so I will reply to this. The other points, although interesting topics of discussion, are not entirely in keeping with the point.

They are very much in keeping with the point. Your argument here does not respond to my post, and talks past it. For those who believe that these indeed do reflect God's commands to the Hebrew people cannot justify them by the standards of an infaliable human nature as you do here and in previous posts. Your line sans Dieu, basically returns it to my corner where all peoples of the world from ancient times to present justify their own violent actions for their own purposes including Andrew Jackson, Hitler, Stalin and Mao Tse Tong. Some do so in the name of God, others not. This is not justification, but 'as it is', facts of life of war in history. The issue is still whether or not these are God's actions and orders. I believe not.

Naturally, sans Dieu the behavior of the Hebrews although in keeping with the behavior of the times is open to question. They would not be on par with many of Alexander the Great's many atrocities and barbarities but they would require justification nonetheless.

In war I do not see anything much different or less moral in the behavior of Alexander the Great or the Hebrews.

But sans Dieu neither you nor I are justified in condemning the Hebrews. They acted as was sufficient for them at the time. Sans Dieu, morality becomes just a word used to describe behavior we either like or don't like, nothing else. And this behavior changes with time and place.

There is no justification for these actions. They are very human acts in the time of war throughout history. The probelm comes when they are considered orders from God.

Nevertheless, were the Hebrews justified in their actions? Here are the facts of the case:

1) The people put to death were Jews who descended from Esau; meaning that they were part of the covenant with Abraham. This gave the Hebrews the legal authority to hold them responsible for their actions.

Being part of the covenant of Abraham gives them justification only from there own point of view, which is used all throughout history to justify invasion, war and genocide. This is not justification, it is simply there reasoning for these acts in the name of God. The question is still whether they were ordered by God or not.

2) The Amalikites waged unceasing war against the Hebrews from the moment that they entered the Promised Land.

. . . and the Hebrews waged unceasing war against the Amalikites. From an objective point of this a turf war and it belongs to neither. Possession was determined by the winner.

3) The language in the Bible is hyperbole; those "exterminated" were a tribe that lived in a valley in the midst of the Hebrews making them a continuous and clear danger. Amalikites outside this area were not affected.

This sounds like a general planning strategy in a turf war.

4) Killing only the warriors of a tribe only deferred a problem for a few years. In 5, 10, 20 or more years children would grow up, become warriors and launnh new attacks on the people responsible for the earlier disaster.

Another very human justification for genocide, which I reject. It is basically the same justification of all genocide in history. This does not jive with the reasons given in the Bible.

5) Killing women and children can be argued as being the most merciful action given the circumstances of the time. In a patriarchal society removing the men is the equivalent of leaving women and children defenseless in hostile territory.

Again another very human justification for these events. Were talking about God's orders not human faliability and logistics. This does not jive with the reasons given in the Bible.

6) Slavery is only possible in a sophisticated society that is capable of policing its slaves. The Hebrews had not reached this level of sophistication at the time of David.

This one I cannot believe. Are you so completely ignorant of the Bible and history that you could make this statement.

Slavery has been documented as far back as the Neolithic with the existence of cities and trade.

Many of the laws concerning slavery were written in Deuteronomy, which is of course well before David.

So yes, even sans Dieu what the Hebrews did was both justifiable and acceptable given the circumstances of the times.

What the Hebrews did is of course, is understandable from the human point of view in warfare throughout history, but not justified, nor acceptable as a commands from God, which is where the real issue lies.

[Rowland]

If the God of the Bible doesn't exist then there is no God. The God of the Bible is indeed a violent God. God said right at the beginning of the Bible that all men and women would die because of Adam and Eve's sin. I know that even many Christians do not like the God of the OT. But, since when does God have to fit our definition of what a god should or should not do? To begin with, God doesn't annihilate people. Physical death is not the same as annihilation. God kills people, but, unlike us, God is able to make people live again. God will someday kill me; He will kill me with a heart attack, with the steering wheel of my car or with something. But He will kill me. So, what is the difference between God killing me and everyone that has been born and God killing all the people in the world with a flood? Or between God commanding the Israelites to kill the Canaanites and God killing all the casualties of war?

God is in charge of our universe. And the God of the Bible does take responsibility for the evil that exists in His universe in spite of the fact that Christians do everything in their power to get God off the hook. God doesn't want us to get Him off the hook. If God is not responsible for the evil in the universe then He is not God. If man is responsible for the evil that exists in the universe then man is God. The suffering of the innocent was fully revealed in the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth. And the Bible is very clear that this evil was a part of God's plan for His universe from the very beginning. When Peter tried to dissuade Jesus from going to Jerusalem to die, Jesus rebuked Peter calling him Satan for this suggestion. Peter failed to see that Jesus' pending suffering was a part of God's plan, not just something that Jesus thought up at the spur of the moment. It wasn't a human based plan.

The suffering of the innocent, much less the suffering of the quilty, in this world is not accidental, does not represent a universe careening out of God's control. The God of the Bible is quite up front about this. This is why faith in God is more than simply an act of intellectual assent that there is a God. Faith in God requires us to look at the evil and suffering in the world as an integral part of God's universe while at the same time trusting that God is doing what is best for us human beings and that in spite of all evidence to the contrary, God is supremely good, and kind and loving.

We believers walk by faith and not by sight. We see the surface reality like the unbelievers also see, but we see through the eyes of faith a deeper reality. Also, a part of our faith in God is our hope in God. We firmly believe that God will fully satisfy our faith in Him sometime in the not so distant future. And we love this God in spite of Him causing us to suffer and die. If you cannot bring yourself to love the violent God of the Bible this is because you really don't believe that this God is good. You rather believe your own eyes and your own conclusions about God than God Himself. And it isn't as though God has not given us any evidence of His kindness, goodness and loving nature. Nevertheless, if everything about God's universe was peaches and cream we wouldn't have to trust God more than we trust our own eyes. But everything in this world is not peaches and cream so we Christians must walk by faith and not by sight.

Rowland

[shunyadragon]

If the God of the Bible doesn't exist then there is no God. The God of the Bible is indeed a violent God. God said right at the beginning of the Bible that all men and women would die because of Adam and Eve's sin. I know that even many Christians do not like the God of the OT. But, since when does God have to fit our definition of what a god should or should not do? To begin with, God doesn't annihilate people. Physical death is not the same as annihilation. God kills people, but, unlike us, God is able to make people live again. God will someday kill me; He will kill me with a heart attack, with the steering wheel of my car or with something. But He will kill me. So, what is the difference between God killing me and everyone that has been born and God killing all the people in the world with a flood? Or between God commanding the Israelites to kill the Canaanites and God killing all the casualties of war?

God is in charge of our universe. And the God of the Bible does take responsibility for the evil that exists in His universe in spite of the fact that Christians do everything in their power to get God off the hook. God doesn't want us to get Him off the hook. If God is not responsible for the evil in the universe then He is not God. If man is responsible for the evil that exists in the universe then man is God. The suffering of the innocent was fully revealed in the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth. And the Bible is very clear that this evil was a part of God's plan for His universe from the very beginning. When Peter tried to dissuade Jesus from going to Jerusalem to die, Jesus rebuked Peter calling him Satan for this suggestion. Peter failed to see that Jesus' pending suffering was a part of God's plan, not just something that Jesus thought up at the spur of the moment. It wasn't a human based plan.

The suffering of the innocent, much less the suffering of the quilty, in this world is not accidental, does not represent a universe careening out of God's control. The God of the Bible is quite up front about this. This is why faith in God is more than simply an act of intellectual assent that there is a God. Faith in God requires us to look at the evil and suffering in the world as an integral part of God's universe while at the same time trusting that God is doing what is best for us human beings and that in spite of all evidence to the contrary, God is supremely good, and kind and loving.

We believers walk by faith and not by sight. We see the surface reality like the unbelievers also see, but we see through the eyes of faith a deeper reality. Also, a part of our faith in God is our hope in God. We firmly believe that God will fully satisfy our faith in Him sometime in the not so distant future. And we love this God in spite of Him causing us to suffer and die. If you cannot bring yourself to love the violent God of the Bible this is because you really don't believe that this God is good. You rather believe your own eyes and your own conclusions about God than God Himself. And it isn't as though God has not given us any evidence of His kindness, goodness and loving nature. Nevertheless, if everything about God's universe was peaches and cream we wouldn't have to trust God more than we trust our own eyes. But everything in this world is not peaches and cream so we Christians must walk by faith and not by sight.

Rowland

Excellent post that clearly demonstrates that God is not the anthropomorphic, vengeful, jealous, arbitray God among Gods of the Bible.

I believe in God, but not a God or Gods sculpted in a human image.

[Rowland]

Excellent post that clearly demonstrates that God is not the anthropomorphic, vengeful, jealous, arbitray God among Gods of the Bible.

I believe in God, but not a God or Gods sculpted in a human image.
Thanks Shuny. Christians are expected to believe that God is the author of the Bible, not man. And yet, when Christians try to interpret the Bible they forget this. God's ways are farther removed from man's ways than the Adromeda galaxy is from ours. We cannot interpret the Bible as though it were a newspaper; we Christians must avoid giving interpretations limited to our human ways of thinking.

In the OT, God continually tells the Israelites that they are no better than the people that God is driving out of the land for the Israelite's benefit. God was neither for the Israelites nor for their adversaries (see Joshua 5:13-14). And God warns the Israelites that they too will be driven out if they turn their backs on Him. This warning is not because God is vindictive or because He is used to getting His way. The warning and the subsequent punishment of the Israelites serves a deeper purpose as does the slaughter of the Canaanites. God's command to Moses to execute an Israelite who was caught picking up sticks on the Sabbath day is actually representative of the spiritual death all human beings face should they try to work for their salvation instead of trusting God to grant it to them as a free gift. The Sabbath rest, as Jesus said, was meant for man, man was not created for the Sabbath. Salvation is for the benefit of man; God didn't save man for His benefit. In fact, all the ritual purity rules and all of the commands to worship God as found in the Bible was for the the benefit of man. These rules helped man to have the confidence to approach God and to talk to Him, something humans need for themselves. We need to worship God. God doesn't need our worship. Everything that God does is for our benefit. This is why the doctrine of eternal torment in hell makes no sense to me. Those who support this doctrine say that hell is necessary to satisfy God's justice. So, this doctrine has man picking up sticks again. It is man experiencing pain-another form of picking up sticks- who satisfies God's justice, not God Himself. And like the man who didn't trust God to keep him warm so went out to gather wood for a fire and then, because of this lack of faith, lost his life, so many people have lost their lives because of not trusting God to save them and their loved ones. People who believe in eternal punishment in hell do not trust in God's power to save all people. That poor lady in Texas, Mrs. Yates, killed her children-in a fit of depression-because she was afraid that they would not accept Jesus as their personal savior and thus could go to hell. She was saving them from hell. She was picking up sticks on the Sabbath. Apostate Christianity teaches that we save ourselves by our act of faith in Jesus, not realizing that this act of faith is a gift also, a gift that God in the Bible promises to give to all human beings.

Christians are taught to approach the Bible with the rationalism of the grammatical-historical method of interpretation. This approach has never worked for me. Take the Book of Acts, for example. In chapter 27 verse 36 of Acts we are told that the ship that Paul was on had a total of 276 passengers. Why would any sane person care how many people were on that damn ship? But the grammatical-historical method of interpretation demands that we care how many people were on that ship. My interpretation of this whole passage is that God is giving us a glimpse of the history of the church. The ship is the Church. The island is the great apostasy that would destroy the church. The number 276 tells us the number of years the church would last before the great apostasy. The church was born in the year 33 AD, more or less. Therefore the Great Apostasy occurred around the year 309 AD: 33 AD+ 276 = 309 AD. I wish the arithmatic would work for 313 AD, the year of Emperor Constantine's edict of toleration. Emperor Constantine was the ant-Christ for this particular apostasy anyway. Paul's ship (the Church) was destroyed. The island of Malta took the Church's place. The heathen in the Church were obviously friendly to the Christians-giving them food and shelter-but from the early fourth century on the heathen were in charge of the Church. Does the Church ever get off the island. I don't know. Even though Paul and the rest of the Church gets off the island, this part of the story may actually be taking us back to the beginning again. Both the new ship and the old ship were from Alexandria. And I believe that Alexandria was more important in the early Church than Rome was. It was only later that Rome replaced Alexandria as the center of Gentile Christianity. As Paul was confined to Rome for two years so the Church has been confined to Rome for 2000 years. Rome stands for Rome and the other Roman capital, Constantinople. Both stand for the Roman Catholic Church and its Protestant daughters and the Eastern Orthodox Church. All are apostate.

And this apostasy is part of God's plan-God's plan to have mercy on all per Romans 11:32.

Rowland

[shunyadragon]

Thanks Shuny. Christians are expected to believe that God is the author of the Bible, not man. And yet, when Christians try to interpret the Bible they forget this. God's ways are farther removed from man's ways than the Adromeda galaxy is from ours. We cannot interpret the Bible as though it were a newspaper; we Christians must avoid giving interpretations limited to our human ways of thinking.

I agree and disagree here. God is the author of revelation, not humans. The Bible is a compilation that contains both revelation and literary narrative and historical works by human authors. Inspiration is woven in the works of men, but not the literal revelation from God. The Bible never directly refers to itself as the literal word of God. There is even at least one book referred to in the Bible that is not there. It does refer to the fact that the word of God is eternal and humans face dire consequences for attempts to alter or bend the word of God to their own wishes.

Literal innerancy falls like a house of cards unless you take a difficult fideist approach that the Bible stands alone as the authority at the expense of geological science and archeology.


Christians are taught to approach the Bible with the rationalism of the grammatical-historical method of interpretation. This approach has never worked for me. Take the Book of Acts, for example. In chapter 27 verse 36 of Acts we are told that the ship that Paul was on had a total of 276 passengers. Why would any sane person care how many people were on that damn ship? But the grammatical-historical method of interpretation demands that we care how many people were on that ship. My interpretation of this whole passage is that God is giving us a glimpse of the history of the church. The ship is the Church. The island is the great apostasy that would destroy the church. The number 276 tells us the number of years the church would last before the great apostasy. The church was born in the year 33 AD, more or less. Therefore the Great Apostasy occurred around the year 309 AD: 33 AD+ 276 = 309 AD. I wish the arithmatic would work for 313 AD, the year of Emperor Constantine's edict of toleration. Emperor Constantine was the ant-Christ for this particular apostasy anyway. Paul's ship (the Church) was destroyed. The island of Malta took the Church's place. The heathen in the Church were obviously friendly to the Christians-giving them food and shelter-but from the early fourth century on the heathen were in charge of the Church. Does the Church ever get off the island. I don't know. Even though Paul and the rest of the Church gets off the island, this part of the story may actually be taking us back to the beginning again. Both the new ship and the old ship were from Alexandria. And I believe that Alexandria was more important in the early Church than Rome was. It was only later that Rome replaced Alexandria as the center of Gentile Christianity. As Paul was confined to Rome for two years so the Church has been confined to Rome for 2000 years. Rome stands for Rome and the other Roman capital, Constantinople. Both stand for the Roman Catholic Church and its Protestant daughters and the Eastern Orthodox Church. All are apostate.

And this apostasy is part of God's plan-God's plan to have mercy on all per Romans 11:32.

Rowland

I agree and disagree here again. I am not sure of your prophecy and math, but I do agree that the Romanization of Christianity occured with adaptation of Christianity as the religion of Rome and is a form of apostacy, but then again we inherited the basic theology and the Bible from their worldview.

When you say all these are apostate, that leaves only a select few someplace with a different correct worldview. I am not sure I buy this totally as an alternative.