Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Sassy on May 24, 2016, 08:06:51 AM
-
King James Bible
Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
What does this mean for believers today?
I have found through my life with the LORD, that the truth is all you need to dispel the ugliness of the darkness within the world and within people.
In my life, I have seen that vengeance take place when wronged or treated unfairly. Not always a bad thing but a fair thing.
God hates deceit and he hates double standards. Especially someone being nice to your face then stabbing you in the back.
It is better to eat vegetables with people you love than the finest meat where there is hatred and strife.
People offering you meat at their table and reluctantly wanting you to have it.
I believe love is the rarest of commodities today. Jesus Christ died for all sins. If you believe you sin or not.
Every sin you could possibly come to mind is the reason Christ was brutally beaten, whipped and hung on a cross to die.
Spat at, jeered at and left in pain and suffering an agnonising death of suffocation.
Us taking revenge would only add to suffering and pain. For us, it is a sin to take revenge but not for God.
Whatever we believe as believer or atheist if it is the truth about what God tells us is sin then what happened to Christ
as depicted in the scene below did so because of those sins.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4m1u7ZSA9Y
Watch it...
Then tell us how you feel that something you have done or will do caused that to happen.
Vengeance... but this is forgiveness... Forgive them for they know not what they do.
But we do know when we sin. We do know when we make light to be darkness and darkness light.
King James Bible. Isaiah 5:20.
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
How can we take or want vengeance and unforgiveness within ourselves when the Son of God our Lord endured all that for us?
When a person lies, steals, cheats, commits adultery, goes with a prostitute and the list is endless.. then all that caused the death of Christ. I do not see the right and wrong but the affliction on God my saviours only begotten son.
It is any wonder that the world will hate us, if it hated him first. Christ did only good, for which of that good was he killed?
He did nothing deserving of death but false witnesses rose up against him. Even when disproved they stopped at nothing to kill him.
Jesus asked for forgiveness because they did not know he was the Son of God the Messiah.
But each person did not have to do as they did. They did not have to jeer or spit at him. They did not have a reason to crucify him. But man is such, he has no real love of his own in his heart. Sometimes the things we believe in are bigger than the things
people do to us which is wrong. Jesus believed and knew his Fathers words were true. How can we live any differently when we know that Christ is the Messiah the Son of God.
Exodus 23:6-7
"You shall not pervert the justice due to your needy brother in his dispute. "Keep far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent or the righteous, for I will not acquit the guilty.
We see why Judas knew he was guilty of betraying innocent blood. False charge and killing the innocent or the righteous is something God tells us not to do.
I have learned in this world there is no true Justice. Only from God can you get true Justice.
How can anyone ignore the price Christ paid to bring us forgiveness?
Nevertheless pay it, he did. Knowing this, how do atheist and believers real feel about this?
-
As usual assertions with no verifiable evidence to support them. If god exists and gets off on vengeance what does that say about it? Nothing good that is for sure
-
'Knowing this, how do atheist and believers real feel about this?'
As an atheist I can never understand how anyone can reconcile the torture of a human being, as you describe, with an act of forgiveness. If God couldn't have found a more humane way of forgiving us our 'sins' then he certainly cannot be described as loving.
-
'Knowing this, how do atheist and believers real feel about this?'
As an atheist I can never understand how anyone can reconcile the torture of a human being, as you describe, with an act of forgiveness. If God couldn't have found a more humane way of forgiving us our 'sins' then he certainly cannot be described as loving.
I guess the sins of mankind... Look at the Jews and Hitler... How do you pay the price for cutting the womb open of a pregnant women with twins without , anesthesia and allowing her to bleed to death whilst you kill and examine her children in front of her?
May be you should reconcile it to the evil man has done to each other since the beginning of time simply because of how you feel. Hatred is a powerful motivator and we see that hatred killed many people for many different reasons.
The 9/11 and the fear in voices of those speaking to loved ones from those planes some now knowing death was imminent.
Don't tell me or any other human being that you don't reconcile why Christ had to die that way because humans themselves inflicted those things he suffered on others.
The truth is every kind of sin had to be dealt with. There were 39 lashes within the medical world all illness and disease can be fitted into 39 catergories. The hatred of others and the jeers and rejection is for all those who have done the same to others.
Those who have murdered and those who treated others less than human or with contempt believing themselves a better person.
Don't tell me you do not understand the eye for an eye. As Christ said... turn the other cheek and do unto others as you want them to do for you.
You don't understand hell.
Did you not understand what Christ did when spoke of Dives and Lazarus?
Dives lived for eternity as he left Lazarus to live in real life.
Hell is not about torture and suffering of all natures projected onto you. Hell is living in the conditions you applied to others in life. Do unto others as you would have them do to you. Does someone give you bad things...
Jesus asked for water they gave him vinegar. In the bible Jesus tells us..." If you son asked for bread would you give him a stone". He then says: " Bad as you are, you know how to give good things to your children; how much more will God give good things to those who ask him".
Sometimes we fail to see that it is about giving good things and helping others. What you sow is what you reap.
-
I guess the sins of mankind... Look at the Jews and Hitler... How do you pay the price for cutting the womb open of a pregnant women with twins without , anesthesia and allowing her to bleed to death whilst you kill and examine her children in front of her?
May be you should reconcile it to the evil man has done to each other since the beginning of time simply because of how you feel. Hatred is a powerful motivator and we see that hatred killed many people for many different reasons.
The 9/11 and the fear in voices of those speaking to loved ones from those planes some now knowing death was imminent.
Don't tell me or any other human being that you don't reconcile why Christ had to die that way because humans themselves inflicted those things he suffered on others.
The truth is every kind of sin had to be dealt with. There were 39 lashes within the medical world all illness and disease can be fitted into 39 catergories. The hatred of others and the jeers and rejection is for all those who have done the same to others.
Those who have murdered and those who treated others less than human or with contempt believing themselves a better person.
Don't tell me you do not understand the eye for an eye. As Christ said... turn the other cheek and do unto others as you want them to do for you.
You don't understand hell.
Did you not understand what Christ did when spoke of Dives and Lazarus?
Dives lived for eternity as he left Lazarus to live in real life.
Hell is not about torture and suffering of all natures projected onto you. Hell is living in the conditions you applied to others in life. Do unto others as you would have them do to you. Does someone give you bad things...
Jesus asked for water they gave him vinegar. In the bible Jesus tells us..." If you son asked for bread would you give him a stone". He then says: " Bad as you are, you know how to give good things to your children; how much more will God give good things to those who ask him".
Sometimes we fail to see that it is about giving good things and helping others. What you sow is what you reap.
I agree that some people have - and still do - act barbarically and yes perhaps they should be made to suffer. But suppose a Russian general had caught Hitler in his bunker in Berlin and said "The only way I can forgive him his sins is to torture and kill my own son" would that be what you call justice?
That's what you tell us God did!
-
I agree that some people have - and still do - act barbarically and yes perhaps they should be made to suffer. But suppose a Russian general had caught Hitler in his bunker in Berlin and said "The only way I can forgive him his sins is to torture and kill my own son" would that be what you call justice?
That's what you tell us God did!
Didn't Hitler claim to be a Roman Catholic?
Does a believer do as Christ did or cause reason to heap suffering on Christ at the cross?
I believe that the things you reveal above are simply in line with your own feelings on the subject.
I will ask you this...
"if you were Hitler or that General would you sin in the first instance if you knew your son would suffer?"
Truth is the suffering we have is due to sin, why add to the world suffering.
If as that general you could save the lives of those 6 million Jews would you give your sons life if he chose and wanted to do so?
No one took Christ's life. As he pointed out he freely chose to give it, to save others.
Our mind set reveals more about us. It reveals how we can choose to search for truth and reason why someone would do as Christ did. Or we can make excuses up and portray it differently according to our cause and often wrong way of thinking.
Personally, I see no other way of sin and the fall being dealt with. One man brought the sin and suffering. It took one innocent man to pay the penalty and redeem us from that first mans sin and the suffering it brought.
He saved the world... that is the world who understand and accept his sacrifice.
-
Didn't Hitler claim to be a Roman Catholic?
Does a believer do as Christ did or cause reason to heap suffering on Christ at the cross?
I believe that the things you reveal above are simply in line with your own feelings on the subject.
I will ask you this...
"if you were Hitler or that General would you sin in the first instance if you knew your son would suffer?"
Truth is the suffering we have is due to sin, why add to the world suffering.
If as that general you could save the lives of those 6 million Jews would you give your sons life if he chose and wanted to do so?
No one took Christ's life. As he pointed out he freely chose to give it, to save others.
Our mind set reveals more about us. It reveals how we can choose to search for truth and reason why someone would do as Christ did. Or we can make excuses up and portray it differently according to our cause and often wrong way of thinking.
Personally, I see no other way of sin and the fall being dealt with. One man brought the sin and suffering. It took one innocent man to pay the penalty and redeem us from that first mans sin and the suffering it brought.
He saved the world... that is the world who understand and accept his sacrifice.
"if you were Hitler or that General would you sin in the first instance if you knew your son would suffer?"
Eh? Read your reply again, Sassy, it makes no sense!
Is the general sinning for capturing the murderer of 6 million Jews? So what's this about 'would he sin if he knew his son was going to die'!
If you are going to try to explain some part of the Bible you should at least think straight!
-
Let's see now.
We either have....
A perfect and omniscient entity like your god (who we hear is positively overflowing with love for his people) created a primitive and barbaric justice system and expects his creation to enact it.
Or....
A primitive and barbaric people produced tales of a primitive and barbaric god who wanted his followers to adopt a primitive and barbaric justice system. Which, co-incidentally, is the only kind of justice these people know.
And it is barbaric.
If our government brought back capital punishment and extended it to cover women who weren't virgins on their wedding night, you'd think they'd lost the plot. However, when your invisible sky pixie's justice is exactly that you see it as an act of transcendent love.
-
"if you were Hitler or that General would you sin in the first instance if you knew your son would suffer?"
Eh? Read your reply again, Sassy, it makes no sense!
Is the general sinning for capturing the murderer of 6 million Jews? So what's this about 'would he sin if he knew his son was going to die'!
If you are going to try to explain some part of the Bible you should at least think straight!
The General and Hitler isn't in the bible????/
You asked me 'Knowing this, how do atheist and believers real feel about this?'
As an atheist I can never understand how anyone can reconcile the torture of a human being, as you describe, with an act of forgiveness. If God couldn't have found a more humane way of forgiving us our 'sins' then he certainly cannot be described as loving.
I explained to you how Hitler a human being sinned by torture and killing human beings.
Was there a humane way of his torture or killing, or is torture and killing just what it is, evil which no matter how we look at it, cannot be made fanciful or humane?
Having made a longer post I then received this from you.
I agree that some people have - and still do - act barbarically and yes perhaps they should be made to suffer. But suppose a Russian general had caught Hitler in his bunker in Berlin and said "The only way I can forgive him his sins is to torture and kill my own son" would that be what you call justice?
That's what you tell us God did!
I then answered and provided the truth from the bible best way I could given you gave me the Russian General bit.
Didn't Hitler claim to be a Roman Catholic?
Does a believer do as Christ did or cause reason to heap suffering on Christ at the cross?
I believe that the things you reveal above are simply in line with your own feelings on the subject.
I will ask you this...
"if you were Hitler or that General would you sin in the first instance if you knew your son would suffer?"
Truth is the suffering we have is due to sin, why add to the world suffering.
If as that general you could save the lives of those 6 million Jews would you give your sons life if he chose and wanted to do so?
No one took Christ's life. As he pointed out he freely chose to give it, to save others.
Our mind set reveals more about us. It reveals how we can choose to search for truth and reason why someone would do as Christ did. Or we can make excuses up and portray it differently according to our cause and often wrong way of thinking.
Personally, I see no other way of sin and the fall being dealt with. One man brought the sin and suffering. It took one innocent man to pay the penalty and redeem us from that first mans sin and the suffering it brought.
He saved the world... that is the world who understand and accept his sacrifice.
You replied.
"if you were Hitler or that General would you sin in the first instance if you knew your son would suffer?"
Eh? Read your reply again, Sassy, it makes no sense!
Is the general sinning for capturing the murderer of 6 million Jews? So what's this about 'would he sin if he knew his son was going to die'!
If you are going to try to explain some part of the Bible you should at least think straight!
May be if you are going to ask questions you should be able to think of all the answers before they are made.
That way you would make counter productive replies.
You clearly asked....
But suppose a Russian general had caught Hitler in his bunker in Berlin and said "The only way I can forgive him his sins is to torture and kill my own son" would that be what you call justice?
Is Justice the real issue? You believe Christ dying an injustice? If you are now trying to say that God was unjust in allowing Christ to die, then show how any person who gives their lives to save another is about justice.
I believe I had answered your posts openly and honestly. Allowing for genuine recourse and explaining how someone could allow their child to die for another. However this has been far from the truth according to your last reply.
EVERY year in November we remember the thousands who gave their lives so we could have our freedom to live today.
Newspapers told the stories of 9/11 of firemen killed to try and save those trapped in burning buildings.
It isn't injustice the actions of these people are brave and selfless. The true injustice is the people getting away with it, that caused it. Is the parent of those fireman responsible or unjust to allowed them to serve knowing it could cost their lives?
I think we understand each other clearly now. Either make your point clear and show how it is connected to the bible or admit
you are straying and mixing two different fractions of the argument together.
-
Let's see now.
We either have....
A perfect and omniscient entity like your god (who we hear is positively overflowing with love for his people) created a primitive and barbaric justice system and expects his creation to enact it.
Explain both positions and show how using the bible you came to this conclusion using NT and OT in your argument.
Show how this refers to salvation through Christ and how Christ is guilty of any sin.
Or....
A primitive and barbaric people produced tales of a primitive and barbaric god who wanted his followers to adopt a primitive and barbaric justice system. Which, co-incidentally, is the only kind of justice these people know.
And it is barbaric.
If our government brought back capital punishment and extended it to cover women who weren't virgins on their wedding night, you'd think they'd lost the plot. However, when your invisible sky pixie's justice is exactly that you see it as an act of transcendent love.
So a judge is unjust in sentencing criminals or murderers.
And you use something that has never been part of out justice system to engage in your unbelievable and even less realistic
fantasies.
Do us a favour... stick to facts and not your own imagination.
-
Explain both positions and show how using the bible you came to this conclusion using NT and OT in your argument.
Show how this refers to salvation through Christ and how Christ is guilty of any sin.
So a judge is unjust in sentencing criminals or murderers.
And you use something that has never been part of out justice system to engage in your unbelievable and even less realistic
fantasies.
Do us a favour... stick to facts and not your own imagination.
You need to take that neam out of your eye first.
Although I can understand your reluctance to do so as that would necessitate thinking for yourself as opposed to being told what to think.
-
The General and Hitler isn't in the bible????/
You asked me
I explained to you how Hitler a human being sinned by torture and killing human beings.
Was there a humane way of his torture or killing, or is torture and killing just what it is, evil which no matter how we look at it, cannot be made fanciful or humane?
Having made a longer post I then received this from you.
I then answered and provided the truth from the bible best way I could given you gave me the Russian General bit.
You replied.
May be if you are going to ask questions you should be able to think of all the answers before they are made.
That way you would make counter productive replies.
You clearly asked....
Is Justice the real issue? You believe Christ dying an injustice? If you are now trying to say that God was unjust in allowing Christ to die, then show how any person who gives their lives to save another is about justice.
I believe I had answered your posts openly and honestly. Allowing for genuine recourse and explaining how someone could allow their child to die for another. However this has been far from the truth according to your last reply.
EVERY year in November we remember the thousands who gave their lives so we could have our freedom to live today.
Newspapers told the stories of 9/11 of firemen killed to try and save those trapped in burning buildings.
It isn't injustice the actions of these people are brave and selfless. The true injustice is the people getting away with it, that caused it. Is the parent of those fireman responsible or unjust to allowed them to serve knowing it could cost their lives?
I think we understand each other clearly now. Either make your point clear and show how it is connected to the bible or admit
you are straying and mixing two different fractions of the argument together.
Of course it is connected to a Bible story! If you cannot see that God torturing and killing a human being (as you say Christ was at that time) not to save some innocent's life as your 9/11 firemen example, but so that he can forgive other human beings for doing atrocious acts, was an injustice ... then I am wasting my time replying to you!
-
You need to take that neam out of your eye first.
Although I can understand your reluctance to do so as that would necessitate thinking for yourself as opposed to being told what to think.
You see a neam in my eye? Surely, you are not serious.
As I said, best to learn about a subject before attempting to speak about it...
I can see the whole forest in your eye, but you won't have a speck of understanding what that is all about...
-
Of course it is connected to a Bible story! If you cannot see that God torturing and killing a human being (as you say Christ was at that time) not to save some innocent's life as your 9/11 firemen example, but so that he can forgive other human beings for doing atrocious acts, was an injustice ... then I am wasting my time replying to you!
Thought better of Jjohnjil,
Why not just admit you got it wrong and start again.
Your post shows a deliberate attempt to mislead others about what you actually wrote having been shown the error of your way.
I am quite happy to answer honest and well deliberated and thought out posts.
But you just showed yourself to be insincere in your posting and unable to admit to your mistake.
I can see no further use discussing this matter with someone who keeps moving the goal post and refusing to answer according to what has been discussed already.
Thanks for your time and posts but in reality we cannot debate on a subject you have created purely in your own mind and without any open minded reasoning from yourself.
-
Hell is not about torture and suffering of all natures projected onto you. Hell is living in the conditions you applied to others in life. Do unto others as you would have them do to you.
So if in life you were generally a good person most of the time, then most of your time in hell would be good?
Is that about right?
-
Thought better of Jjohnjil,
Why not just admit you got it wrong and start again.
Your post shows a deliberate attempt to mislead others about what you actually wrote having been shown the error of your way.
I am quite happy to answer honest and well deliberated and thought out posts.
But you just showed yourself to be insincere in your posting and unable to admit to your mistake.
I can see no further use discussing this matter with someone who keeps moving the goal post and refusing to answer according to what has been discussed already.
Thanks for your time and posts but in reality we cannot debate on a subject you have created purely in your own mind and without any open minded reasoning from yourself.
You and I certainly think differently, Sassy, I cannot understand your reasoning on this or most of your posts. I am just fortunate, I suppose, not to have been indoctrinated into thinking whatever the Bible says - even when it makes no sense at all - as infallible.
.
-
Sass's posts seem to demonstrate she is getting more and more desperate to prove to herself what she believes in the 'truth'.
-
You need to take that neam out of your eye first.
Although I can understand your reluctance to do so as that would necessitate thinking for yourself as opposed to being told what to think.
Why don't you deal with Sassy in the same way that you would do battle with the Mysterons Khatru?
You're just as likely to get as much sense out of them as you'd get from our Sass. OO
ippy
-
You see a neam in my eye? Surely, you are not serious.
As I said, best to learn about a subject before attempting to speak about it...
I can see the whole forest in your eye, but you won't have a speck of understanding what that is all about...
Of course there's a beam in your eye - it makes you oblivious to anything other than your myth book.
It also makes you think good of bad things: we've already seen how you defend the indiscriminate killing of babies.
Now you're talking about your invisible sky pixie's justice.
Well, we already know that "might makes right" is his justice code.
After all, your myth book itself tells us that robbery, destruction and murder are not wrong when it's the Bible god that's doing it.
If you believed your god was instructing you to kill the child next door you'd do exactly that.
-
Why don't you deal with Sassy in the same way that you would do battle with the Mysterons Khatru?
You're just as likely to get as much sense out of them as you'd get from our Sass. OO
ippy
"This is the voice of the Mysterons.....we will make Sass think for herself"
-
Biblical literalism can screw many folk up and certainly doesn't make them better, more decent people. It is really creepy that some can believe every word in the Bible to be true, when there is no evidence to support most of the stories.
On this forum, and others of its ilk, we have had examples of fundies enjoying the prospect of their unpleasant deity wreaking vengeance on those who don't see it their way, including other Christians.
I know I have said it before but make no apology for repeating myself, those who bring the faith into disrepute like the two front runners on this forum, as well as several who have been banned, or no longer post here, might discover they aren't welcome in heaven.
-
Floo: On this forum, and others of its ilk, we have had examples of fundies enjoying the prospect of their unpleasant deity wreaking vengeance on those who don't see it their way, including other Christians.
I've never encountered anyone on this forum, since I started posting again a year ago, who enjoys the prospect of God wreaking vengeance on anyone else. Next time it happens, please point me in that direction so I can read it for myself.
-
Floo: On this forum, and others of its ilk, we have had examples of fundies enjoying the prospect of their unpleasant deity wreaking vengeance on those who don't see it their way, including other Christians.
I've never encountered anyone on this forum, since I started posting again a year ago, who enjoys the prospect of God wreaking vengeance on anyone else. Next time it happens, please point me in that direction so I can read it for myself.
WOW! You obviously aren't reading the same posts as me!
-
Floo: On this forum, and others of its ilk, we have had examples of fundies enjoying the prospect of their unpleasant deity wreaking vengeance on those who don't see it their way, including other Christians.
I've never encountered anyone on this forum, since I started posting again a year ago, who enjoys the prospect of God wreaking vengeance on anyone else. Next time it happens, please point me in that direction so I can read it for myself.
Please allow me.....
TW certainly seems to get off on the idea of eternal torture for all those who don't see it his way!
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?action=post;quote=612332;topic=12021.50;last_msg=615713
`
That's right and I get my info from the bible.
~TW~
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?action=post;quote=612368;topic=12021.50;last_msg=615713
-
Obviously not. The idea of anyone enjoying, relishing, the thought of someone else in any kind of torment (torment wasn't actually mentioned but I deduce that is what you are talking about), is not something I have come across here.
Regarding the title of this thread, ''Vengeance is mine....etc'', I take it to mean that we are not supposed to enact vengeance. We are taught (& you were taught once upon a time), that on the day of judgement everyone, sinners and those who haven't sinned (much), will stand before God, give an account of ourselves and be judged. Then it is up to him and he can see into a person's heart and stand in their shoes, knowing all circumstances, better than any of us, so we really can't tell who will be with him for eternity and who will not. If we knew now, we might be surprised!
We have the law of the land to judge and convict (or let go), people who may have broken the law; it's not right for people to then try to add to the lawful punishment. If someone is in prison it's wrong for prison officers to punish them further, likewise they should be protected from any fellow inmates. As for us, it's done, we should leave it alone. They will be judged one day and, who knows, we could be judged more harshly.
(Khatru I have seen your post and will look at the link you provided, thank you.
Done. Actually couldn't get anything on either link except what floo said, not the other person. TW? Does he still post here or does he have a different name?)
-
Obviously not. The idea of anyone enjoying, relishing, the thought of someone else in any kind of torment (torment wasn't actually mentioned but I deduce that is what you are talking about), is not something I have come across here.
Regarding the title of this thread, ''Vengeance is mine....etc'', I take it to mean that we are not supposed to enact vengeance. We are taught (& you were taught once upon a time), that on the day of judgement everyone, sinners and those who haven't sinned (much), will stand before God, give an account of ourselves and be judged. Then it is up to him and he can see into a person's heart and stand in their shoes, knowing all circumstances, better than any of us, so we really can't tell who will be with him for eternity and who will not. If we knew now, we might be surprised!
We have the law of the land to judge and convict (or let go), people who may have broken the law; it's not right for people to then try to add to the lawful punishment. If someone is in prison it's wrong for prison officers to punish them further, likewise they should be protected from any fellow inmates. As for us, it's done, we should leave it alone. They will be judged one day and, who knows, we could be judged more harshly.
(Khatru I have seen your post and will look at the link you provided, thank you.
Done. Actually couldn't get anything on either link except what floo said, not the other person. TW? Does he still post here or does he have a different name?)
Sadly TW enjoys telling us we are going to hell, he last posted on May 17th! I am surprised you haven't seen his 'lovely' posts. He and Sass seem to be cut from the same cloth!
-
It seems longer than that since TW last posted, maybe he has left us. Of course I remember him and have had an exchange with him, iirc. He did say some explosive things but I cannot remember him saying precisely what you suggest though I'm not saying he didn't.
You can't compare him to Sassy, they are not at all alike. Whatever you think of her and her posts (& I don't think it is quite the thing to do, to bring up fellow posters' names unless you have something good to say), she wouldn't relish the idea of anyone 'going to Hell'.
-
It seems longer than that since TW last posted, maybe he has left us. Of course I remember him and have had an exchange with him, iirc. He did say some explosive things but I cannot remember him saying precisely what you suggest though I'm not saying he didn't.
IIRC he most certainly has.
You can't compare him to Sassy, they are not at all alike. Whatever you think of her and her posts (& I don't think it is quite the thing to do, to bring up fellow posters' names unless you have something good to say), she wouldn't relish the idea of anyone 'going to Hell'.
Actually I agree with you on this one. However, her desire to protect certain believers (regardless of their views, and even though they might contradict her views) means she comes across as completely unable to condemn such views if they are expressed by a Christian.
-
"This is the voice of the Mysterons.....we will make Sass think for herself"
They would have to be pretty powerfull to make Sass think, just for starters, but those luminous O's, would need some kind of power boost and I bet Sass doesn't believe in the Mysterons, I know it's difficult to believe but there's still some people that don't believe in them.
ippy
-
Famous quote attributed to Aquinas, who is not a member of this forum: 'In order that nothing may be wanting to the felicity of the blessed spirits in Heaven, a perfect view is granted to them of the tortures of the damned.'
-
Oh charming, give me strength. I do wonder if people who say or said such things really think about what they are saying; if they did, they wouldn't be able to sleep.
Anyway, Aquinas is wrong on more than one front. We are not taught that 'we' ('we' hope), will be looking down on 'them'. In addition, the idea that we would be pleased about it is horrific! Aquinas lived in an era that I would not like to visit.
-
Oh charming, give me strength. I do wonder if people who say or said such things really think about what they are saying; if they did, they wouldn't be able to sleep.
Anyway, Aquinas is wrong on more than one front. We are not taught that 'we' ('we' hope), will be looking down on 'them'. In addition, the idea that we would be pleased about it is horrific! Aquinas lived in an era that I would not like to visit.
I'm sorry, Brownie, but I think Aquinus knew exactly what he was saying and meant evey word of it.
In doing some research for a project some yeras ago I had the misfortune to have to read quite a bit of his writings and some of them are still treated as the basis for much Catholic dogma. For many years his was the book referred to to answer most questions as to whar=t God and Jesus intended for the world and the people in it. The Catholic Church, from the earliest times to the end of the wars to try and destroy Protestantism, was one of the most murderous organisations ever to infest the Earth.
They made damn sure that heretics suffered the flames of Hell by sending them there by burning them alive.
-
So if in life you were generally a good person most of the time, then most of your time in hell would be good?
Is that about right?
WHAT is a good person? The bible teaches only God is good. Christ was called good because being good is really being without sin. In life have you forgiven your debtors and have they forgiven you?
It clearly states that at the end of time everyone will give an account. Books will be open.
Do you believe when you insult God you are doing a good thing?
So where do we start with what a good person is?
-
It seems longer than that since TW last posted, maybe he has left us. Of course I remember him and have had an exchange with him, iirc. He did say some explosive things but I cannot remember him saying precisely what you suggest though I'm not saying he didn't.
You can't compare him to Sassy, they are not at all alike. Whatever you think of her and her posts (& I don't think it is quite the thing to do, to bring up fellow posters' names unless you have something good to say), she wouldn't relish the idea of anyone 'going to Hell'.
TW posted on the politics and currents affairs forum, on May 17th. I think he and Sass are very much alike, imo, but we will leave it at that.
-
You and I certainly think differently, Sassy, I cannot understand your reasoning on this or most of your posts. I am just fortunate, I suppose, not to have been indoctrinated into thinking whatever the Bible says - even when it makes no sense at all - as infallible.
.
There is you indoctrination:-
I am just fortunate, I suppose, not to have been indoctrinated into thinking whatever the Bible says - even when it makes no sense at all - as infallible.
You see no one is indoctrinated hence the lie a lot of atheists believe. Most who are raised Roman Catholic lose their faith and belief in God in Adulthood. The truth is you cannot make a person believe in God. God is in our dna he created it, and we all have that decision to make. The bible can be read by any person but the Gentiles had never read the OT who came to Christ in the NT book of Acts. Those who came to Christ and received the Holy Spirit already had the giver of truth to teach and lead them.
In the OT the Jews came to know God by obeying his commandments and teachings of the Prophets.
But Jeremiah 31:31-34 shows the new way and covenant in Christ would be about the person knowing God.
So the choice is about the individual and their minds when they accept Christ are opened to understand the Scriptures.
You cannot be indoctrinated. Faith in God is really about those who seek and want truth.
King James Bible
Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
If you ever came to the stage where you really wanted the truth, not just to know but to live with and know God.
If you searched with all your heart, you would find it.
Never about brain washing always truth and Spirit.
-
As usual assertions with no verifiable evidence to support them. If god exists and gets off on vengeance what does that say about it? Nothing good that is for sure
Does it say that 'God gets off on vengeance', Floo? No. Does it say that we as individuals oughtn't to mete out punishment? Yes. After all, isn't that what UK law says - that 'vengeance' is the responsibility of society, not you or I?
-
Sass's posts seem to demonstrate she is getting more and more desperate to prove to herself what she believes in the 'truth'.
No Christian is desperate when it comes to Gods word the truth and Spirit.
So much wrong and what appears desperation on your own part to insult and tear down that which you have no knowledge or understanding about.
Why would I need to prove anything the truth to myself? Honest people who seek God are not about deceiving themselves or anyone else. Are you desperate? Do you need to prove to yourself what you believe? Can you actually give any reasons why an atheist or believer would have to prove what they believe to themselves?
When it comes down to is, your ignorance about God, Christ and believers is constantly shown in the remarks you make.
We are never alone for God is with us in Christ Jesus. Is there any other proof than Gods presence with an individual, that he exists?
It is you who are desperate and it is you making false accusation reflecting your own doubt and desperation onto others.
Christianity is a personal thing... you cannot give your oil to someone else. They have to have their own oil.
You have no lamp let alone no oil. A believer requires the Holy Spirit to guide them and live with them.
He changes the old into the new.
Maybe you are desperate to prove to yourself what you want others to believe with you.
My beliefs will never harm others if they believe and follow the truths. But your belief would harm anyone who adopted it.
I believe sometimes you need a reality check. You just got yours.
-
Does it say that 'God gets off on vengeance', Floo? No. Does it say that we as individuals oughtn't to mete out punishment? Yes. After all, isn't that what UK law says - that 'vengeance' is the responsibility of society, not you or I?
The deity featured in the not so good book appears to get off on it. Only a real nut job would wish to flood a whole planet, if that mythical tale any credibility.
-
WHAT is a good person? The bible teaches only God is good. Christ was called good because being good is really being without sin.
You said
Hell is living in the conditions you applied to others in life. Do unto others as you would have them do to you.
I am trying to get what you mean by that.
One way to interpret what you said is that if you lived a life, where for the most part, you 'applied conditions to others' which were not evil and not horrible and not nasty, then according to you - hell would be living in those conditions.
Which for the most part would not be a bad thing, would it?
That is what I meant by being 'generally good'.
Now you want to introduce 'good' as being perfect, without 'sin'.
Well none of us is 'perfect', which is why I said generally.
So lets drop the word 'good' as you seem so hung up on it and try again.
-
In life have you forgiven your debtors and have they forgiven you?
What do you mean by 'debtor'?
-
Of course there's a beam in your eye - it makes you oblivious to anything other than your myth book.
You are ignorant of what the speck in your eye is. Go away and learn the teaching.
It also makes you think good of bad things: we've already seen how you defend the indiscriminate killing of babies.
So you would kill all the adults and leave the babies to die a slow agonising death or for animals to kill?
You need to wake up to yourself... Do you think no babies killed in any war by Man.
Didn't they kill the babies themselves? Didn't mankind have not care for their children. Didn't they sacrifice their Children to Molech
Leviticus 18:21
Verse Concepts
'You shall not give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am the LORD.
God destroyed the nations who were already teaching to offer their children as sacrifices to idols/false Gods.
The truth is God hated such things and he destroyed completely those nations so they could not lead the Israelites astray.
In the parts of the bible, the parts where Nations are destroyed or even Pharaoh and his armies it is all about Nations who kill children and even mistreat others.
God actually was putting an end to such things by destroying Nations who did this.
He was just and allowed no nation who harmed their children or could harm the children of other nations to exist.
God told the Israelites that there was to be no child burnt offerings etc.
But the evil was such that they did it. Googled these for you.
Read through them... God hates child sacrifices. By destroying nations and their descendants he put an end to it.
Child sacrifice
Most Relevant Verses
Leviticus 18:21
Verse Concepts
'You shall not give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am the LORD.
Exodus 22:29
Verse Concepts
"You shall not delay the offering from your harvest and your vintage The firstborn of your sons you shall give to Me.
Exodus 13:12-16
you shall devote to the LORD the first offspring of every womb, and the first offspring of every beast that you own; the males belong to the LORD. "But every first offspring of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb, but if you do not redeem it, then you shall break its neck; and every firstborn of man among your sons you shall redeem. "And it shall be when your son asks you in time to come, saying, 'What is this?' then you shall say to him, 'With a powerful hand the LORD brought us out of Egypt, from the house of slavery. read more.
Exodus 34:19
Verse Concepts
"The first offspring from every womb belongs to Me, and all your male livestock, the first offspring from cattle and sheep.
Deuteronomy 18:10
Verse Concepts
"There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer,
2 Kings 3:27
Verse Concepts
Then he took his oldest son who was to reign in his place, and offered him as a burnt offering on the wall. And there came great wrath against Israel, and they departed from him and returned to their own land.
2 Kings 16:3
Verse Concepts
But he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, and even made his son pass through the fire, according to the abominations of the nations whom the LORD had driven out from before the sons of Israel.
2 Chronicles 28:3
Verse Concepts
Moreover, he burned incense in the valley of Ben-hinnom and burned his sons in fire, according to the abominations of the nations whom the LORD had driven out before the sons of Israel.
2 Kings 17:17
Verse Concepts
Then they made their sons and their daughters pass through the fire, and practiced divination and enchantments, and sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the LORD, provoking Him.
2 Kings 21:6
Verse Concepts
He made his son pass through the fire, practiced witchcraft and used divination, and dealt with mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the sight of the LORD provoking Him to anger.
2 Chronicles 33:6
Verse Concepts
He made his sons pass through the fire in the valley of Ben-hinnom; and he practiced witchcraft, used divination, practiced sorcery and dealt with mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the sight of the LORD, provoking Him to anger.
2 Kings 23:10
Verse Concepts
He also defiled Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter pass through the fire for Molech.
Isaiah 57:5
Verse Concepts
Who inflame yourselves among the oaks, Under every luxuriant tree, Who slaughter the children in the ravines, Under the clefts of the crags?
Jeremiah 7:31
Verse Concepts
"They have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, and it did not come into My mind.
Deuteronomy 12:31
Verse Concepts
"You shall not behave thus toward the LORD your God, for every abominable act which the LORD hates they have done for their gods; for they even burn their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods.
Leviticus 20:2-5
"You shall also say to the sons of Israel: 'Any man from the sons of Israel or from the aliens sojourning in Israel who gives any of his offspring to Molech, shall surely be put to death; the people of the land shall stone him with stones. 'I will also set My face against that man and will cut him off from among his people, because he has given some of his offspring to Molech, so as to defile My sanctuary and to profane My holy name. 'If the people of the land, however, should ever disregard that man when he gives any of his offspring to Molech, so as not to put him to death, read more.
Psalm 106:35-38
But they mingled with the nations And learned their practices, And served their idols, Which became a snare to them. They even sacrificed their sons and their daughters to the demons, read more.
Jeremiah 32:35
Verse Concepts
"They built the high places of Baal that are in the valley of Ben-hinnom to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I had not commanded them nor had it entered My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.
Hosea 13:2
Verse Concepts
And now they sin more and more, And make for themselves molten images, Idols skillfully made from their silver, All of them the work of craftsmen They say of them, "Let the men who sacrifice kiss the calves!"
Ezekiel 20:26
Verse Concepts
and I pronounced them unclean because of their gifts, in that they caused all their firstborn to pass through the fire so that I might make them desolate, in order that they might know that I am the LORD."'
Ezekiel 20:31
Verse Concepts
"When you offer your gifts, when you cause your sons to pass through the fire, you are defiling yourselves with all your idols to this day. And shall I be inquired of by you, O house of Israel? As I live," declares the Lord GOD, "I will not be inquired of by you.
Ezekiel 23:37
Verse Concepts
"For they have committed adultery, and blood is on their hands. Thus they have committed adultery with their idols and even caused their sons, whom they bore to Me, to pass through the fire to them as food.
Jeremiah 19:4-5
"Because they have forsaken Me and have made this an alien place and have burned sacrifices in it to other gods, that neither they nor their forefathers nor the kings of Judah had ever known, and because they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, a thing which I never commanded or spoke of, nor did it ever enter My mind;
Ezekiel 16:20-21
"Moreover, you took your sons and daughters whom you had borne to Me and sacrificed them to idols to be devoured. Were your harlotries so small a matter? "You slaughtered My children and offered them up to idols by causing them to pass through the fire.
Genesis 22:1-2
Now it came about after these things, that God tested Abraham, and said to him, "Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am." He said, "Take now your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you."
Hebrews 11:17
Verse Concepts
By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was offering up his only begotten son;
Genesis 22:16
Verse Concepts
and said, "By Myself I have sworn, declares the LORD, because you have done this thing and have not withheld your son, your only son,
John 3:16
Verse Concepts
"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
Romans 8:32
Verse Concepts
He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?
Jeremiah 19:5
Verse Concepts
and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, a thing which I never commanded or spoke of, nor did it ever enter My mind;
Ezekiel 16:21
Verse Concepts
"You slaughtered My children and offered them up to idols by causing them to pass through the fire.
2 Kings 17:31
Verse Concepts
and the Avvites made Nibhaz and Tartak; and the Sepharvites burned their children in the fire to Adrammelech and Anammelech the gods of Sepharvaim.
[/quote]
As you can see witchcraft and Paganism were the original cause of Children being sacrificed to false Gods.
God put an end to those nations and punished the Israelites if they failed to obey his rules about their children.
Now go away and stop bringing up something you have no understanding about. God hates the killing of Children and killed those who did it, and their descendants so they could not do it again.
Now you're talking about your invisible sky pixie's justice.
Well, we already know that "might makes right" is his justice code.
After all, your myth book itself tells us that robbery, destruction and murder are not wrong when it's the Bible god that's doing it.
If you believed your god was instructing you to kill the child next door you'd do exactly that.
The truth has shown how you are the one in denial.
The book shows that God does not want the things man makes up for himself.
It was man who decided to sacrifice his Children.
Abraham showed a faith that knew God could bring his Son back from the dead.
The same Faith of Abraham that saw Christs coming. It also shows that God did not want and does not want the children or people of others sacrificed to him. Would you promise God to sacrifice a person to him?
Mans nature is the evil part...
Jephtah’s daughter
Having been told they must not make human sacrifices what does Jephtah do?
He promises to sacrifice the first thing that greets him. Prepared to kill another person then his only daughter is the first.
He tells her and she agrees to fulfill the promise. A promise wrongly made doing that which God does not want.
But he is taught a life lesson he will never forget.
A lesson to us all that God does not want us to make sacrifices of humans.
Now you know that the truth is these people who were destroyed along with their descendants were about ridding the world of such evil things as sacrificing their children. These people were not civilised they had no police stations and no one to stop them killing their children. It is that part of it's history modern paganism has left behind. They made blood sacrifices of their children and people. So the truth is God destroyed in mankind that which was not good. He killed off those who killed their children and the Children as they would have only carried on the same practice.
Now the truth is out you can shut up! Because you were wrong all along. God killed those who killed their children and their children to stop more being killed.
-
You have just proved what a psycho your version of god is, Sass!
-
If you believed your god was instructing you to kill the child next door you'd do exactly that.
We would not kill a child next door because we know our God would never instruct us to do so.
Knowing the history of the OT and the truth about his actions we know he got rid of those people who practiced such things and completely wiped them all out, including their children and babies to put an end to such evil practices of sacrificing their children.
Had you read the bible and all that was before and after the verses you cherry pick you would have not wasted everyone elses time concerning the truth. Ask the Pagans and the false God worshippers why their ancient ancestors killed their children in sacrifice? The truth is mans own evil. Man thought it all up on their own. Abraham and Isaac was clear proof that whilst those who know God and his promises know he can do anything. They also know that God does not want anyone to sacrifice their child just have the faith Abraham had to know God could raise the dead and do anything.
-
A god who set Abraham up to sacrifice his son then says, 'Just joking' before the deed is done is a complete nutter! If the story was true, Isaac must have been terrified, and Abraham an unfit parents to give into a voice in his head.
-
Knowing the history of the OT and the truth about his actions we know he got rid of those people who practiced such things and completely wiped them all out, including their children and babies to put an end to such evil practices of sacrificing their children.
If it worked out well then there will have been no child sacrifices in the world, ever, since that event?
Is that the case?
-
We would not kill a child next door because we know our God would never instruct us to do so.
Knowing the history of the OT and the truth about his actions we know he got rid of those people who practiced such things and completely wiped them all out, including their children and babies to put an end to such evil practices of sacrificing their children.
So in order to stop human sacrifices he ordered/committed genocide.
Nice solution.
-
If it worked out well then there will have been no child sacrifices in the world, ever, since that event?
Is that the case?
Why do you think Pagans have tried to separate themselves from their history?
ARE YOU everywhere in the world and does every religion in the world sacrifice their children to pagan Gods?
Christians do not offer their children as sacrifices. Jews do not offer their children as sacrifices.
Are you saying that religions throughout the world ALL offer their children as Sacrifices?
Not really a sensible answer, was it ST?
Christ gave up his life for mankind. You might give up your life to save your brother.
But no one takes it, if you have a choice and freely give it.
God tells us the greatest love we can have for another is to give our lives for them.
No take their lives away from them.
Life is precious to God. We will one day all give an account. He has tried to save us before that time by sending his Son.
A Son who made it clear he gave up his life willingly a life given for you and I.
I believe God shows us our Children are meant to be a blessing. But some children rebel against their parents and God.
Those selfish and full of pride who believe only in themselves and their own ways.
Everyone at fault but the real culprit themselves. God is good and he loves us, wanted us to know the true way.
Love is Gods answer and he had to teach us his way. The true way of truth and goodness.
Being just he has revealed that when we break the law there is a penalty.
God provides a way for that price to be paid if we only accept it.
-
Are you saying that religions throughout the world ALL offer their children as Sacrifices?
No I am most definitely not saying that and if you took the time to actually read my reply then you would clearly see that.
Here it is here.
If it worked out well then there will have been no child sacrifices in the world, ever, since that event?
Is that the case?
Yours was not really a sensible reply, was it Sassy?
Would you care to try again?
-
So where do we start with what a good person is?
How about someone who doesn't kill babies?
-
Do you think no babies killed in any war by Man.
Of course I don't but I do hate it and I condemn it.
Unlike you who loves what your god does and refuses to condemn his baby-killing activities. In fact, you seek to justify your god's murderous actions.
If your god was omnipotent he could rid society of evil doers without killing babies. What's more, he could do it with less effort than it takes for you to blink.
Didn't they kill the babies themselves? Didn't mankind have not care for their children. Didn't they sacrifice their Children to Molech
Your invisible sky pixie is no better than Moloch. The Bible god says that sacrificing your children is a sin but when he called upon Abraham to do just that, Abraham was considered just and righteous for being ready to sacrifice Isaac.
Now the truth is out you can shut up! Because you were wrong all along. God killed those who killed their children and their children to stop more being killed.
Actually, the bible god makes it worse for children.
"And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend in the siege and straitness, wherewith their enemies, and they that seek their lives, shall straiten them."
Jeremiah 19:9
In this myth, the people were sacrificing their children to Baal. Good job your invisible sky pixie is on hand to stop this slaughter of innocent children, eh?
Well....no...not quite.
What does your deity of choice do?
He gets angry at the adults and arranges it so that they now eat their children.
How about that? Rather than step in and save the children, your god's judgement is to ensure that even more children die. Now, instead of sacrificing their children, your god is making the parents eat them.
What is it about your god's love that entails so much death and suffering?
See what your beliefs mean?
It's not just baby killing and incest that you have to defend but you can now add cannibalism to that list.
-
We would not kill a child next door because we know our God would never instruct us to do so.
I didn't say "when" your god tells you to do this, I said "if".
You're putting limits on what your god can/can't do and I thought you believers say there is nothing he can't do.
Remember, it's "if" and not "when"
Now, please try again. Picture the scene......
You wake up in the middle of the night to the sound of a heavenly fanfare and standing before you in a blaze of glory is your God.
"You have been a good and trusty servant to Me" says Yaweh; "Now I have a special task for you"
"The unbeliever next door has blasphemed against the Holy Spirit and My righteous wrath has risen. For his punishment I command you to kill his child"
"Do this in My name and the heavens will forever sing to My glory"
Do you obey your god?
Yes or no?
-
I think Sassy has explained the meaning of the Biblical stories she quotes very well indeed. I've gained some new insights. I know people who do not believe in God will think it is all nonsense but I do wonder if people actually read the posts and try to see them from a different point of view, even if they don't agree. Some are difficult to read but it's worth staying the course. Certainly on this thread I have found it worthwhile to read carefully.
Am I the only one on here who thinks this? Or are some others shy to say so.
-
I think Sassy has explained the meaning of the Biblical stories she quotes very well indeed. I've gained some new insights. I know people who do not believe in God will think it is all nonsense but I do wonder if people actually read the posts and try to see them from a different point of view, even if they don't agree. Some are difficult to read but it's worth staying the course. Certainly on this thread I have found it worthwhile to read carefully.
Am I the only one on here who thinks this? Or are some others shy to say so.
I think you are in the minority if you think Sass makes much sense, but each to their own.
-
Picture the scene......
You wake up in the middle of the night to the sound of a heavenly fanfare and standing before you in a blaze of glory is your God.
"You have been a good and trusty servant to Me" says Yaweh; "Now I have a special task for you"
"The unbeliever next door has blasphemed against the Holy Spirit and My righteous wrath has risen. For his punishment I command you to kill his child"
"Do this in My name and the heavens will forever sing to My glory"
Do you obey your god?
Yes or no?
'If' my God instructed me to such a thing, I would practise what Jesus and the writers of the NT documents urged their listeners and readers to do - to test the spirit of the instruction. Since I do not believe that my God would ever issue such an instruction, I would treat it for what it would seem to be - something emanating from a source that was not 'my God'.
Amongst other indicators of this is the comment "Do this in My name and the heavens will forever sing to My glory". The heavens already forever sing to God's glory; we are often told that killing (anyone) is more likely to stop them singing those praises.
You're putting limits on what your god can/can't do and I thought you believers say there is nothing he can't do.
There is a considerable difference between 'can/can't' and 'would/wouldn't', Khat. Out of interest, if you felt that some external entity - perhaps a human agency - was telling you to do what you are suggesting the Christian God might do, what would you do, and why?
-
So you don't believe god told Abraham to go through the motions of sacrificing Isaac, albeit to pull the plug at the last moment?
-
'If' my God instructed me to such a thing, I would practise what Jesus and the writers of the NT documents urged their listeners and readers to do - to test the spirit of the instruction. Since I do not believe that my God would ever issue such an instruction, I would treat it for what it would seem to be - something emanating from a source that was not 'my God'.
You have to admit though that he has a past record of ordering people to be killed. So some sort of call might come.
There is a considerable difference between 'can/can't' and 'would/wouldn't', Khat. Out of interest, if you felt that some external entity - perhaps a human agency - was telling you to do what you are suggesting the Christian God might do, what would you do, and why?
Tell someone that I had had that experience. My wife, a friend, GP, the police (if an actual person told me to harm someone else). I should imagine that I would find it disturbing.
-
'If' my God instructed me to such a thing, I would practise what Jesus and the writers of the NT documents urged their listeners and readers to do - to test the spirit of the instruction. Since I do not believe that my God would ever issue such an instruction, I would treat it for what it would seem to be - something emanating from a source that was not 'my God'.
Amongst other indicators of this is the comment "Do this in My name and the heavens will forever sing to My glory". The heavens already forever sing to God's glory; we are often told that killing (anyone) is more likely to stop them singing those praises.
There is a considerable difference between 'can/can't' and 'would/wouldn't', Khat. Out of interest, if you felt that some external entity - perhaps a human agency - was telling you to do what you are suggesting the Christian God might do, what would you do, and why?
Semantics, Hope.
The words I chose were just for fun.
The point I'm making (which believers seem so reluctant to face up to) is that if a Christian was left in no doubt whatsoever that it really was their god telling them to kill the child next door, they would obey.
The only judicial code the Bible god has is "Might Makes Right". Whatever he says goes. if he decided that it was a sin to sleep with people of the opposite sex, you'd all be seeking same-sex partners. Or are you going to say that's impossible because you can't help the way you're hardwired?
What would I do if a human agency told me to kill the child next door?
I'd refuse because I don't get my morality from an unproveable supreme cosmic mega-being.
-
How many people on this forum would attempt to sacrifice their child because they believed their god was telling them to do so?
-
Did anyone watch 'The Secret' based on a true story good example that religion can be used to justify anything.
-
I did watch it and found it chilling in the extreme. I also felt sorry for the children of the two murderers, having to see their parents with lots of personal stuff portrayed in drama. Nevertheless it was a very good drama.
I do not believe for one minute that that man, Colin, really believes all the religious stuff he spouts. He's a psychopath. He talks the talk to try and justify what he did (no doubt he still does in prison), he brainwashed Hazel, and he gave out an aura of respectability. However there is nothing respectable in anyone's book about committing a carefully planned double murder and he and Hazel might have got away with it. I mean, "Putting them out of their misery", give me strength! If that isn't blaspheming against the Holy Spirit, I don't know what is. He is an arrogant man and has no doubt found a way to quite enjoy his prison sentence, manipulating other inmates; one would hope, not the staff.
It was a good insight into how 'religious' society is in Northern Ireland compared to us. James Nesbitt hails from NI and remembered how the scandal rocked Coleraine when it all came out.
Had the pair not hailed from and lived in Northern Ireland but over here, the man would have found something other than religion to give him a respectable air and a different justifications for his actions.
-
You are ignorant of what the speck in your eye is. Go away and learn the teaching.
So you would kill all the adults and leave the babies to die a slow agonising death or for animals to kill?
You need to wake up to yourself... Do you think no babies killed in any war by Man.
Didn't they kill the babies themselves? Didn't mankind have not care for their children. Didn't they sacrifice their Children to Molech
Leviticus 18:21
Verse Concepts
'You shall not give any of your offspring to offer them to Molech, nor shall you profane the name of your God; I am the LORD.
God destroyed the nations who were already teaching to offer their children as sacrifices to idols/false Gods.
The truth is God hated such things and he destroyed completely those nations so they could not lead the Israelites astray.
In the parts of the bible, the parts where Nations are destroyed or even Pharaoh and his armies it is all about Nations who kill children and even mistreat others.
God actually was putting an end to such things by destroying Nations who did this.
He was just and allowed no nation who harmed their children or could harm the children of other nations to exist.
God told the Israelites that there was to be no child burnt offerings etc.
But the evil was such that they did it. Googled these for you.
Read through them... God hates child sacrifices. By destroying nations and their descendants he put an end to it.
As you can see witchcraft and Paganism were the original cause of Children being sacrificed to false Gods.
God put an end to those nations and punished the Israelites if they failed to obey his rules about their children.
Now go away and stop bringing up something you have no understanding about. God hates the killing of Children and killed those who did it, and their descendants so they could not do it again.
The truth has shown how you are the one in denial.
The book shows that God does not want the things man makes up for himself.
It was man who decided to sacrifice his Children.
Abraham showed a faith that knew God could bring his Son back from the dead.
The same Faith of Abraham that saw Christs coming. It also shows that God did not want and does not want the children or people of others sacrificed to him. Would you promise God to sacrifice a person to him?
Mans nature is the evil part...
Jephtah’s daughter
Having been told they must not make human sacrifices what does Jephtah do?
He promises to sacrifice the first thing that greets him. Prepared to kill another person then his only daughter is the first.
He tells her and she agrees to fulfill the promise. A promise wrongly made doing that which God does not want.
But he is taught a life lesson he will never forget.
A lesson to us all that God does not want us to make sacrifices of humans.
Now you know that the truth is these people who were destroyed along with their descendants were about ridding the world of such evil things as sacrificing their children. These people were not civilised they had no police stations and no one to stop them killing their children. It is that part of it's history modern paganism has left behind. They made blood sacrifices of their children and people. So the truth is God destroyed in mankind that which was not good. He killed off those who killed their children and the Children as they would have only carried on the same practice.
Now the truth is out you can shut up! Because you were wrong all along. God killed those who killed their children and their children to stop more being killed.
Blimey Sass!
ippy
-
Seeing as I have your attention, Sass, care to answer this question which you ran away from....
I didn't say "when" your god tells you to do this, I said "if".
You're putting limits on what your god can/can't do and I thought you believers say there is nothing he can't do.
Remember, it's "if" and not "when"
Now, please try again. Picture the scene......
You wake up in the middle of the night to the sound of a heavenly fanfare and standing before you in a blaze of glory is your God.
"You have been a good and trusty servant to Me" says Yaweh; "Now I have a special task for you"
"The unbeliever next door has blasphemed against the Holy Spirit and My righteous wrath has risen. For his punishment I command you to kill his child"
"Do this in My name and the heavens will forever sing to My glory"
Do you obey your god?
Yes or no?
-
Seeing as I have your attention, Sass, care to answer this question which you ran away from....
Khatru, the problem with your insistence that people answer the question is that you don't like the answers people have given you. Let's take another example. I have no idea whether you have any children, but let's say your father told you to kill on of your own children. Would you? I doubt it. Would you simply refuse to do it, or would you be looking into why it appeared that he had? Had you misunderstood him? Had he had a mental aberration? Had he been looking to see what your reaction would be? Would you, in other words, have tested the instruction to see whether it was something that you father would even ask in the first place?
-
You have to admit though that he has a past record of ordering people to be killed. So some sort of call might come.
Interestingly enough, the context of Khat's hypothetical scenario is very, very different to any scenario that the Bible records. That is why the likelihood of any such instruction is - in my view - nil.
Tell someone that I had had that experience. My wife, a friend, GP, the police (if an actual person told me to harm someone else). I should imagine that I would find it disturbing.
I suspect that anyone would, and would therefore think about where the idea had come from. I doubt many would simply dismiss it; they'd want to find out the sourse. Had it come from their own imagination? Had it come as a result of material they had been reading or watching? Had it been triggered by a comment someone else had said at some point? ....? ...?
-
Khatru, the problem with your insistence that people answer the question is that you don't like the answers people have given you. Let's take another example. I have no idea whether you have any children, but let's say your father told you to kill on of your own children. Would you? I doubt it. Would you simply refuse to do it, or would you be looking into why it appeared that he had? Had you misunderstood him? Had he had a mental aberration? Had he been looking to see what your reaction would be? Would you, in other words, have tested the instruction to see whether it was something that you father would even ask in the first place?
Sorry, Hope
As of yet I haven't actually had an answer, just body swerves and avoidance.
I can also tell you that if my father told me to kill one of my children I would refuse.
Yes, I would question his sanity but I would never have tested the instruction because that amounts to child abuse.
So, my answer is categorically, no!
What about your answer, Hope?
If your god instructed you to kill a child, would you obey?
-
Sorry, Hope
As of yet I haven't actually had an answer, just body swerves and avoidance.
Think yourself lucky, sunshine.
It's usually body swerves, avoidance and any one of any number of logical fallacies with this one.
-
Sorry, Hope
As of yet I haven't actually had an answer, just body swerves and avoidance.
I can also tell you that if my father told me to kill one of my children I would refuse.
Yes, I would question his sanity but I would never have tested the instruction because that amounts to child abuse.
So, my answer is categorically, no!
What about your answer, Hope?
If your god instructed you to kill a child, would you obey?
As he demanded that Abraham kill, sacrifice, his son?
-
Interestingly enough, the context of Khat's hypothetical scenario is very, very different to any scenario that the Bible records. That is why the likelihood of any such instruction is - in my view - nil.
I suspect that anyone would, and would therefore think about where the idea had come from. I doubt many would simply dismiss it; they'd want to find out the sourse. Had it come from their own imagination? Had it come as a result of material they had been reading or watching? Had it been triggered by a comment someone else had said at some point? ....? ...?
Sorry, Hope - you're missing the point.
Forget about the way I worded that scenario.
Let's just say that your god was standing before you and, like Abraham, you were in no doubt that it was your god.
What if your god ordered you to kill the child?
Would you refuse?
-
Sorry, Hope - you're missing the point.
Forget about the way I worded that scenario.
Let's just say that your god was standing before you and, like Abraham, you were in no doubt that it was your god.
What if your god ordered you to kill the child?
Would you refuse?
If the answer be "No" then he is a pathetic excuse for a parent
If it be "Yes" then he is a pathetic excuse for a Christian.
Win-win situation from my viewpoint!
-
No I am most definitely not saying that and if you took the time to actually read my reply then you would clearly see that.
Here it is here.
Yours was not really a sensible reply, was it Sassy?
Would you care to try again?
[/quote]
The original post shows I succeeded you are the one lacking and being dishonest in your cherry picking and twisting of the contents..
Quote from: Sebastian Toe on May 26, 2016, 09:21:14 AM
If it worked out well then there will have been no child sacrifices in the world, ever, since that event?
Is that the case?
Why do you think Pagans have tried to separate themselves from their history?
ARE YOU everywhere in the world and does every religion in the world sacrifice their children to pagan Gods?
Christians do not offer their children as sacrifices. Jews do not offer their children as sacrifices.
Are you saying that religions throughout the world ALL offer their children as Sacrifices?
Not really a sensible answer, was it ST?
Christ gave up his life for mankind. You might give up your life to save your brother.
But no one takes it, if you have a choice and freely give it.
God tells us the greatest love we can have for another is to give our lives for them.
No take their lives away from them.
Life is precious to God. We will one day all give an account. He has tried to save us before that time by sending his Son.
A Son who made it clear he gave up his life willingly a life given for you and I.
I believe God shows us our Children are meant to be a blessing. But some children rebel against their parents and God.
Those selfish and full of pride who believe only in themselves and their own ways.
Everyone at fault but the real culprit themselves. God is good and he loves us, wanted us to know the true way.
Love is Gods answer and he had to teach us his way. The true way of truth and goodness.
Being just he has revealed that when we break the law there is a penalty.
God provides a way for that price to be paid if we only accept it.
Now we see your ignorance and deliberately avoiding the rest of the post shows you were being less than honest in your reply.
You just cannot accept when you are wrong.
-
Oh the irony! :D
-
It seems longer than that since TW last posted, maybe he has left us. Of course I remember him and have had an exchange with him, iirc. He did say some explosive things but I cannot remember him saying precisely what you suggest though I'm not saying he didn't.
You can't compare him to Sassy, they are not at all alike. Whatever you think of her and her posts (& I don't think it is quite the thing to do, to bring up fellow posters' names unless you have something good to say), she wouldn't relish the idea of anyone 'going to Hell'.
Brownie,.
Floo, is knowingly being less than truthful on purpose.
People just stop reading her posts after a while. You are stating the obvious and she knows you are right.
As for TW he has said he would be away in one of his posts for a little while. Not sure if holiday or just a rest.
Hope it is a holiday.
-
Would you, in other words, have tested the instruction to see whether it was something that you father would even ask in the first place?
I wouldn't test it by going along with it.
-
Quote from: Floo on May 27, 2016, 12:35:05 PM
How many people on this forum would attempt to sacrifice their child because they believed their god was telling them to do so?
No, I would be seriously worried about being psychotic. What a frightening thought!
I found the following exegesis which gives an interpretation of why Abraham was asked to sacrifice his son. It doesn't sit well with me but does go some way to explain it, from a Judeo/Christian pov.
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/abe_isaac.html
Modify message
-
If the answer be "No" then he is a pathetic excuse for a parent
If it be "Yes" then he is a pathetic excuse for a Christian.
Win-win situation from my viewpoint!
This question never fails to cause believers immense problems hence their repeated failure to even try to answer it.
I refer to an earlier post of mine....
It's a simple enough question but it seems to cause you problems.
What is it with believers and their reluctance to answer questions?
Unlike the believers, I think most unbelievers will always try to answer a question posed by another person, regardless of the question, or indeed, who is posing it.
Will we always answer it to complete satisfaction?
Sometimes we will, sometimes not at all and sometimes never. However, as a believer, I for one really dislike walking away from a question without at least trying to answer it. Seems that this is a personal standard shared by many unbelievers and not-so-many believers. It's a good quality.
Sure, we can be seen as arrogant at times; even forceful in our pursuit of accountability. Unlike believers, we have no problem being scrutinised and we are also able to elucidate in a way that can be understood by anyone willing to apply the same effort at understanding that we place ourselves out there to be scrutinised.
What I notice with theists is they like to jut the chin out and challenge. However, try asking them a question that requires them to inspect what they think and you'll find they will try to shift the point of discussion to some sort of "only I can understand it" slant.
So, it's rare you run across an atheist that won't put themselves up to be picked apart or explain why they think as they do.
If it can be understood by one, it can by all, no desire or faith required.
-
IIRC he most certainly has.
Actually I agree with you on this one. However, her desire to protect certain believers (regardless of their views, and even though they might contradict her views) means she comes across as completely unable to condemn such views if they are expressed by a Christian.
Not strictly true is it?
If, I have made it clear what I believe and they are different to that of another believer, then I have by that reasoning said that I do not agree. To condemn would be to suggest that there is something unwholesome about the view as if against Christ or God. The Sadducee and Pharisee existed with different beliefs along side each other because they knew Christ would bring the final truth of which belief is right.
Christianity is about Christ being the Son of God and the Messiah. The truth written in the OT being revealed and the final outcome of people being saved by God through the final covenant with all peoples.
I am going to ask you what is so frightening about the thought of hell that you believe TW is doing something wrong if he says people will go there?
Christ said:
Luke 16:19-31King James Version (KJV)
19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
From that, I take hell to be a place where you go because you saw someone suffering and had the means to help them and did nothing.
If a man came like lazarus every day and sat near you would you give him food and clothing and help him?
I believe that books will be opened up and all judged. I cannot predict who or what will happen. I can only predict those who know Christ and do as he has told us will not be judged but has passed from judgement.
In the OT the Jews believed anyone who did what God said to be right was acceptable to God.
Lke the two sons asked to do something by their Father...
28 But what think ye? A certain man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard.
29 He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went.
30 And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir: and went not.
31 Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.
32 For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.
You see sometimes we can love God simply by obeying him whether intentional or not.
Dives ignored the needs of his fellow man.
We see in our country the government turning man against man. Painting the poor and needy as lazy.
Do you believe being poor in this country is really about being lazy?
The way we think and allow others to influence our thoughts is something which we need to be aware about.
Often, when giving to the homeless or buying big issues someone whose company I am in will say they have more money
than you don't encourage them. But if they had more why be sat dirty in the street and need a dog for protection if they did have money?
Sometimes not everything is what it appears. Jesus Christ is the Son of God and died for everyone's sins. Even the person before me at the point. I give because I care and often wish I could re-house and give them all a better way of life.
You probably do and feel the same, people do not go to hell who actually care. Because written in the books are always the truth. You may refuse to believe in God and what he tells you but some atheists can act as if in obedience to GOD by giving to those in need.
Even Jesus makes it plain.
King James Bible
For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.
Heartfelt care for others is something we can all show. :)
-
They would have to be pretty powerfull to make Sass think, just for starters, but those luminous O's, would need some kind of power boost and I bet Sass doesn't believe in the Mysterons, I know it's difficult to believe but there's still some people that don't believe in them.
ippy
Indestructible Captain Scarlet....
My God is like that and in believers too... indestructible and yet fighting the forces of evil in an attempt to save our souls.
I guess I believe in the power of good over evil and see the force of God in believers overcoming that which is evil in mankind.
You can see the good and bad power struggle in the Mysterons from Mars and Captain Scarlet fighting to keep earth safe from them.
In our world it is saving men from the forces of evil and Satan the main instigator of all that man suffers.
How odd you think about the such programs and yet fail to see the reality of evil and Gods good nature in the world. :)
-
Famous quote attributed to Aquinas, who is not a member of this forum: 'In order that nothing may be wanting to the felicity of the blessed spirits in Heaven, a perfect view is granted to them of the tortures of the damned.'
I guess you are saying the judgment has happened and there are tortured souls in hell.
Well perhaps the quote is wrongly attributed in that it refers to the Dives and Lazarus approach by Christ explaining why one is suffering the things he allowed another human to suffer in life.
Who would want to see someone tortured? Don't Christians preach Christ crucified and risen for forgiveness?
Doesn't he tell us God loves all the world and wants everyone saved?
Is it really so hard or difficult to love your neighbour? Is it hard to see that the basic teaching is do no harm?
Christ tells us that:
King James Bible
Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.
21 If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink:
22 For thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head, and the Lord shall reward thee.
I believe that it means they will regret their actions and hatred toward you as an enemy,.
Having given bad to receive good. You would definitely think twice about the way you look at that person and even change your mind about how they gave good for your bad..
God tells us not to take vengeance. I believe that it is in repaying good for bad we can stop the nature of evil.
Turning the other cheek and yet even more giving what is not earned of deserved as God did with us.
-
Quote from: Floo on May 27, 2016, 12:35:05 PM
How many people on this forum would attempt to sacrifice their child because they believed their god was telling them to do so?
No, I would be seriously worried about being psychotic. What a frightening thought!
I found the following exegesis which gives an interpretation of why Abraham was asked to sacrifice his son. It doesn't sit well with me but does go some way to explain it, from a Judeo/Christian pov.
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/abe_isaac.html
Modify message
I've had a look at your link and I see problems....
God was not tempting Abraham. God was not enticing Abraham to do wrong, but was testing him to see if he would do what was right.
What's this? The Bible god, of whom we are told knows absolutely everything there is to know, was unaware whether Abraham would do right or wrong? God who can read all our hearts (1 Chronicles 28:9) didn't know whether Abe was devoted to him until he was ready and willing to murder Isaac by way of human sacrifice?
Sounds like yet another of many contradictions found throughout the Bible
God was not instituting or condoning child sacrifice. As seen in Deuteronomy 12:31 and the other passages above, God abhors child sacrifice. It's important to remember that God prevented the sacrifice from actually occurring. He did not desire the sacrifice as an act of worship or for any other reason beyond testing Abraham.
The disgusting thing here is that Abe was quite ready to sacrifice Isaac and would have gone ahead with it if God hadn't stopped him. Yet the Bible says that Abe was righteous? A guy who was going to sacrifice his child? Why is this different from the followers of Moloch and Baal who sacrificed their children? In those cases, God called it a sin but when he told Abraham to do the very same thing, everything was alright and because Abe was going to go ahead with the sacrifice it made him a righteous man?
This writer of the article justifies this atrocious tale of contradiction and child abuse by saying that whatever God says goes, in other words "might makes right". I guess the writer wants us to obey the orders of authority without question, no matter how unreasonable and immoral those orders might be.
This terrible state of affairs is no doubt seen by many believers as an example of transcendent love but only after they've disabled their own conscience and allowed an external agency the privilege of assuming that role for them. They accept as moral whatever they are told God thinks is moral. How ripe they are for exploitation!
It's sad but they probably can't see how they might be a danger to their neighbours with an attitude like that.
-
How anyone can condone the action of Abraham is beyond me. I have heard it argued Abraham knew god would call a halt at the last minute! What about Isaac in all this, he must have been scared witless? How could anyone have a good relationship with a parent who was prepared to use them as a human sacrifice?
-
Dearie Me,
Abraham and Issac, it's a bloody Myth, a story with a truth in it, you don't sacrifice children, maybe a small god would ask you to sacrifice a child, but God would not, why would a God who can look into your very heart need to test you, bloody stupid, get over it Christians there are a lot of Myths in your Bible.
Gonnagle.
-
Dearie Me,
Abraham and Issac, it's a bloody Myth, a story with a truth in it, you don't sacrifice children, maybe a small god would ask you to sacrifice a child, but God would not, why would a God who can look into your very heart need to test you, bloody stupid, get over it Christians there are a lot of Myths in your Bible.
Gonnagle.
so when you do not like the message, just say myth. If you happen to like the message, then it's the word of god.
Very slippery.
I bet the flood was a myth and no one died? (well I know it is really a myth, but some Christians think it really happened)
-
so when you do not like the message, just say myth. If you happen to like the message, then it's the word of god.
Very slippery.
Not many of them go the full porker and say the same of the resurrection, though ;)
-
Not many of them go the full porker and say the same of the resurrection, though ;)
That was to be my next question.
If some of it is myth why not all of it, and how can you tell?
-
Dear Berational,
so when you do not like the message, just say myth. If you happen to like the message, then it's the word of god.
No, you question what is happening, you ask the why, where, what, who, when.
Dear Shaker,
The Resurrection, yes there are many who hang their coat on this, not me, it is the whole overarching message of the Gospels, the whole story, not just one bit.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Berational,
No, you question what is happening, you ask the why, where, what, who, when.
Dear Shaker,
The Resurrection, yes there are many who hang their coat on this, not me, it is the whole overarching message of the Gospels, the whole story, not just one bit.
Gonnagle.
Those questions do not ensure everyone will come the same conclusion.
Is god a myth?
Your questions confirm what I said. If YOU like it you might say it is the word of god, if you don't it's myth.
This is cherry picking.
-
Dear Berational,
Those questions do not ensure everyone will come the same conclusion.
Course not, we are all different, all human, all open to human failing.
Is god a myth?
Find out what a Myth is, no not the Oxford English, and then we might discuss "is God a Myth".
This is cherry picking.
What!! Like your constant mention of Slavery, I don't think I am the only Cherry Picker around these parts.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Berational,
Course not, we are all different, all human, all open to human failing.
Find out what a Myth is, no not the Oxford English, and then we might discuss "is God a Myth".
What!! Like your constant mention of Slavery, I don't think I am the only Cherry Picker around these parts.
Gonnagle.
I am not cherry picking you are!
I point out nits of the bible to demonstrate that it is NOT a good book, or a book that can advise us today about morality. Unless of course you agree with slavery and mass murder?
You cherry pick, as you think this is inspired by some god, and you think some parts are due to this god, and some not.
I on the other hand just propose that it is all written by humans, and as such is perfectly consistent with human behaviour and morality at the time.
You have the problem of ALL the bad stuff in the bible, as you think this book is inspired by an all powerful, all knowing god.
The bible to me, looks just as I would expect it to if just written by people of the time. Some good, some bad, some terrible.
-
Dear Berational,
Sorry mate, you really have me mixed up with some other poster, or, OR, and maybe the more probable, you have taken all you have against Christianity and heaped it on me, tarring me with the same brush, tut tut!!
I on the other hand just propose that it is all written by humans, and as such is perfectly consistent with human behaviour and morality at the time.
See, sometime we agree ;)
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Berational,
Sorry mate, you really have me mixed up with some other poster, or, OR, and maybe the more probable, you have taken all you have against Christianity and heaped it on me, tarring me with the same brush, tut tut!!
See, sometime we agree ;)
Gonnagle.
That would be true if you do NOT use the bible as a source of the word of some god.
If you do not think there is any truth about a god in there, then I was wrong.
-
Dear Berational,
I use the Bible, more importantly I use the Gospels to think about God, what God wants for me and his children, but that is not my only reference, science, philosophy, other religions, oh and more educated people who have studied science, philosophy and other religions.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Berational,
I use the Bible, more importantly I use the Gospels to think about God, what God wants for me and his children, but that is not my only reference, science, philosophy, other religions, oh and more educated people who have studied science, philosophy and other religions.
Gonnagle.
Do you find ANYTHING in the bible that you would attribute to a god?
Also, you cannot use science to find god, as science says nothing about god. What is really happening is your misattribution of something sciency that sounds nice or deep, and think that must be god at work.
It's dishonest, as the scientists behind the science, would never make that claim.
-
Gonnagle Gi\\[/b]link=topic=12121.msg617046#msg617046 date=1464784265]
Dearie Me,
Abraham and Issac, it's a bloody Myth, a story with a truth in it, you don't sacrifice children, maybe a small god would ask you to sacrifice a child, but God would not, why would a God who can look into your very heart need to test you, bloody stupid, get over it Christians there are a lot of Myths in your Bible.
Gonnagle.[quote/]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brownie:
Most of us realise that Gonners. I was taught that the Bible can be divided into three documents, a historical document, a mythological document and a something else (I firgit) document**. I left that behind for a long time and then came back to it without being conscious that it was an established teaching, one taught to me when I was at school. It's not cherry picking if you accept the categorisation of the Biblical documents. There is some crossover of course but I wouldn't take something from 'Wisdom Literature' and say it belonged in the 'Myth' bit, that would be cherry picking and confusing.
However, that church teaching which I find easy to go along with, and others, however well established, are the opinions of men who lived many years ago. Inspirational but ripe for scrutiny and challenge. I do believe that faith evolves and that we gain new insights as time goes on, so certain emphases shift.
I'll shirrup now :-).
My post has got caught up in the quote box. I've tried to release it but my efforts were in vain.
**Wisdom Literature!
-
I on the other hand just propose that it is all written by humans, and as such is perfectly consistent with human behaviour and morality at the time.
You have the problem of ALL the bad stuff in the bible, as you think this book is inspired by an all powerful, all knowing god.
The bible to me, looks just as I would expect it to if just written by people of the time. Some good, some bad, some terrible.
Your first proposition is of course the most reasonable explanation of what was going on with these writings. And of course the accounts of the behaviour of 'God' differ quite a bit, even in the OT, because there were very different personalities writing the various accounts (though some non-Christian posters like to imply that the whole lot suggests a violent, psychopathic god, which is just the obverse of the fundamentalist view).
I don't think Gonners adopts the fundamentalist view that you've ascribed to him, though - in fact, since I know he's a fan of Karen Armstrong, I'm bloody sure you're misrepresenting him.
God changes throughout the Bible, according to humans' changing perception of what he's supposed to be like. I suppose the liberal believers have to make their bet on which accounts of 'God's' attributes more accurately reflect the reality. If they go with the view that 'God' is all loving and forgiving, then they have to edit out the nasty bits.
Of course, there is just the possibility (which Thomas Hardy toyed with), that the reality is that God is a monster, and all the nasty bits are true, and that all the nice loving bits are just camouflage, a nice bait on the hook of a sadist, part of whose satisfaction comes from duping people before he tortures them.
-
Your first proposition is of course the most reasonable explanation of what was going on with these writings. And of course the accounts of the behaviour of 'God' differ quite a bit, even in the OT, because there were very different personalities writing the various accounts (though some non-Christian posters like to imply that the whole lot suggests a violent, psychopathic god, which is just the obverse of the fundamentalist view).
I don't think Gonners adopts the fundamentalist view that you've ascribed to him, though - in fact, since I know he's a fan of Karen Armstrong, I'm bloody sure you're misrepresenting him.
God changes throughout the Bible, according to humans' changing perception of what he's supposed to be like. I suppose the liberal believers have to make their bet on which accounts of 'God's' attributes more accurately reflect the reality. If they go with the view that 'God' is all loving and forgiving, then they have to edit out the nasty bits.
Of course, there is just the possibility (which Thomas Hardy toyed with), that the reality is that God is a monster, and all the nasty bits are true, and that all the nice loving bits are just camouflage, a nice bait on the hook of a sadist, part of whose satisfaction comes from duping people before he tortures them.
I'm certainly not saying he adopts the fundamentalist view at all.
What I am saying is that he cherry picks stuff from the bible to suit his preferred option of a god. He does this though, with no method other than what feels right.
This is the point, lots of people read the bible, and have very different views. If it was the word of god, then it should all be true, or at least there should be some method that could be used to test a verse to see if it was the word of god, or just made up stuff.
This method is never produced, because it does not exist, and it's all down to personal interpretation, and this is the problem.
-
This is the point, lots of people read the bible, and have very different views. If it was the word of god, then it should all be true, or at least there should be some method that could be used to test a verse to see if it was the word of god, or just made up stuff.
This method is never produced, because it does not exist, and it's all down to personal interpretation, and this is the problem.
Some Christians (of whom I think Gonners is one) think the Bible should be considered as "words about God", rather than the whole lot having been as it were dictated inerrantly by the Holy Spirit.
I admit that this certainly raises questions about the supposed omniscience and omnipotence of God - for if he cannot work out some kind of accurate means of transmitting his message and purposes, but has to rely on the muddled and inaccurate perceptions of humans, then he doesn't really seem much of a God at all. "Kill all the young boys and girls" (Numbers 31) doesn't really square up with "Thou shalt not kill", does it?
-
Some Christians (of whom I think Gonners is one) think the Bible should be considered as "words about God", rather than the whole lot having been as it were dictated inerrantly by the Holy Spirit.
I admit that this certainly raises questions about the supposed omniscience and omnipotence of God - for if he cannot work out some kind of accurate means of transmitting his message and purposes, but has to rely on the muddled and inaccurate perceptions of humans, then he doesn't really seem much of a God at all. "Kill all the young boys and girls" (Numbers 31) doesn't really square up with "Thou shalt not kill", does it?
Exactly.
The only point I want to drive home, is that it is the theists that cherry pick the bible to find a god.
As an atheist I do not need to do that as I do not find the case for a god convincing, and the bible is not a convincing document in my view. So if people think god can be found in the bible, I want to know why they like some but not all, and also claim to NOT cherry pick.
-
Some Christians (of whom I think Gonners is one) think the Bible should be considered as "words about God", rather than the whole lot having been as it were dictated inerrantly by the Holy Spirit.
I admit that this certainly raises questions about the supposed omniscience and omnipotence of God - for if he cannot work out some kind of accurate means of transmitting his message and purposes, but has to rely on the muddled and inaccurate perceptions of humans, then he doesn't really seem much of a God at all. "Kill all the young boys and girls" (Numbers 31) doesn't really square up with "Thou shalt not kill", does it?
I think an awful lot of Christians just pay lip-service to omnipotence, well, all the omnis. Do they really think that God could stop earthquakes or ebola virus?
-
I think an awful lot of Christians just pay lip-service to omnipotence, well, all the omnis. Do they really think that God could stop earthquakes or ebola virus?
YES - they do! They think that God inflicts these abominations upon us sinners as punishment for our failure to obey his laws.
-
Dear Brownie,
However, that church teaching which I find easy to go along with, and others, however well established, are the opinions of men who lived many years ago. Inspirational but ripe for scrutiny and challenge. I do believe that faith evolves and that we gain new insights as time goes on, so certain emphases shift.
I'll shirrup now :-).
No don't shut up, this is something Berational does not take on board, faith evolves, he says it is about personal interpretation, well hell yes!! as we gain new insights, new life experiences, we might look at the Bible in a new light, we grow, we learn, but me and Berational have been down this road umpteen times, he see's the world through atheist eyes, I see it through Christian eyes, correction, I see it through cherry picking Christian eyes, he does not cherry pick but if I had a quid for everytime he mentioned slavery I would have enough for a weekend in Blackpool.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Brownie,
No don't shut up, this is something Berational does not take on board, faith evolves, he says it is about personal interpretation, well hell yes!! as we gain new insights, new life experiences, we might look at the Bible in a new light, we grow, we learn, but me and Berational have been down this road umpteen times, he see's the world through atheist eyes, I see it through Christian eyes, correction, I see it through cherry picking Christian eyes, he does not cherry pick but if I had a quid for everytime he mentioned slavery I would have enough for a weekend in Blackpool.
Gonnagle.
I do but that does NOT count as cherry picking as I do not claim that everything in the bible is from an all loving God.
Those that claim it is, need to have the problem bits pointed out.
I think you believe God can be found in the bible but you DO cherry pick as you select only the good bits that chime with YOUR interpretation of God.
I am happy to take the whole bible warts and all and see quite clearly it was written by people of the time. This is why slavery and mass killing is in because it would seem fine to them.
What spin do you put on slavery in the bible?
-
How anyone can condone the action of Abraham is beyond me. I have heard it argued Abraham knew god would call a halt at the last minute! What about Isaac in all this, he must have been scared witless? How could anyone have a good relationship with a parent who was prepared to use them as a human sacrifice?
You are so out of touch that you have no idea that the children of God, trust their maker.
Abraham, knew God had promised the covenant promise through Issac.
He had faith that even if Isaac died that somehow God could raise him from the dead and do all he had promised.
But more than anything Abraham loved God not just because of the promise but because God was who he said he was.
God had never intended for Abrahams son to die and even provided a sacrifice. It also taught a lesson that human sacrifice
was not something God wanted. Abraham never sacrificed his servants or people to God.
Abraham so loved God he was willing to sacrifice his own son. Which showed he genuinely had a relationship with Gd.
God so loved the world that he gave his only son that whosoever believeth on him should not perish but have eternal life.
Not sacrificed as a an animal or ritually, Christ paid the price that sinners paid for punishment according to the Law.
We see the person who wrongly promises to sacrifice the first thing to greet him for winning in battle is the mans only daughter.
The man should not have promised God something God does not want. Human sacrifices are an abomination to him.
But his daughter upon hearing willingly gives her life to keep her Fathers promise.
Her life was not his to give. She willingly gave it up. It showed two things... Genuine faith and belief in God and how we should not to others what we do not want done to us. God just wants thanks and that is the sacrifice acceptable to him to do the right thing.
We see that Abrahams trust was being tested and his love of God.
He loved God so much he would not hold his son back. But we see God did not want him to sacrifice his son and never intended him to sacrifice his son. The LORD God provided an alternative sacrifice.
It was clear at the very beginning that God does not want and never has wanted human Sacrifices.
He just wants us to love him and clearly that love would not include human sacrifice.
He also wanted us to love others. It is a clear message.
-
You are so out of touch that you have no idea that the children of God, trust their maker.
Abraham, knew God had promised the covenant promise through Issac.
He had faith that even if Isaac died that somehow God could raise him from the dead and do all he had promised.
But more than anything Abraham loved God not just because of the promise but because God was who he said he was.
God had never intended for Abrahams son to die and even provided a sacrifice. It also taught a lesson that human sacrifice
was not something God wanted. Abraham never sacrificed his servants or people to God.
Abraham so loved God he was willing to sacrifice his own son. Which showed he genuinely had a relationship with Gd.
God so loved the world that he gave his only son that whosoever believeth on him should not perish but have eternal life.
Not sacrificed as a an animal or ritually, Christ paid the price that sinners paid for punishment according to the Law.
We see the person who wrongly promises to sacrifice the first thing to greet him for winning in battle is the mans only daughter.
The man should not have promised God something God does not want. Human sacrifices are an abomination to him.
But his daughter upon hearing willingly gives her life to keep her Fathers promise.
Her life was not his to give. She willingly gave it up. It showed two things... Genuine faith and belief in God and how we should not to others what we do not want done to us. God just wants thanks and that is the sacrifice acceptable to him to do the right thing.
We see that Abrahams trust was being tested and his love of God.
He loved God so much he would not hold his son back. But we see God did not want him to sacrifice his son and never intended him to sacrifice his son. The LORD God provided an alternative sacrifice.
It was clear at the very beginning that God does not want and never has wanted human Sacrifices.
He just wants us to love him and clearly that love would not include human sacrifice.
He also wanted us to love others. It is a clear message.
So if god asked you to sacrifice one of your children, you would obey trusting it to know best?
-
Dearie Me,
Abraham and Issac, it's a bloody Myth, a story with a truth in it, you don't sacrifice children, maybe a small god would ask you to sacrifice a child, but God would not, why would a God who can look into your very heart need to test you, bloody stupid, get over it Christians there are a lot of Myths in your Bible.
Gonnagle.
Abraham is not a myth....
King James Bible
Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
Unless you are now calling the Son of God a liar?
You have done enough harm with your constant belittling and excuses before the men who disbelieve and insult our LORD God.
All because of your own pride. Yep! you actually believe you know better than God or Moses who wrote the truth about Abraham. Do you really believe you know better than God, Moses and Jesus Christ?
Be Still and know that God he is God. Know also that no lie ever came from God and Abraham is not a myth but a reality.
Man shall not live by bread alone but by EVERY WORD that proceeds from the mouth of God.
Moses knew God and the Messiah would be like Moses and God would put his words into his mouth.
" My words are Spirit and they are life!
God,Moses and Jesus declared Abraham to be real. Who are you to call them liars?
In reality it is has now been made clear to you. Do you still persist in calling Abraham a myth and so calling everything that comes after a lie?
THINK.... You do yourself an injustice and your faith. The truth is the truth... God is not a liar.
-
so when you do not like the message, just say myth. If you happen to like the message, then it's the word of god.
Very slippery.
I bet the flood was a myth and no one died? (well I know it is really a myth, but some Christians think it really happened)
Some people actually know God so know why it is not a myth. You know nothing so cannot believe anything but yourself.
-
Jesus being a mere human, had no more idea of the 'truth' than you, Sass!
-
Not many of them go the full porker and say the same of the resurrection, though ;)
The resurrection of Christ can be proved. If you obey his words you will know if what he says is true.
Try it. But the truth is the failing is on your own part. You won't try it.
-
The resurrection of Christ can be proved. If you obey his words you will know if what he says is true.
Try it. But the truth is the failing is on your own part. You won't try it.
Of course it can't be proved, you have NO evidence for that daft assertion!
-
The resurrection of Christ can be proved.
Go ahead.
If you obey his words you will know if what he says is true.
Bullshit. This doesn't prove - your word - the alleged resurrection of a man two thousand years ago.
Try it. But the truth is the failing is on your own part. You won't try it.
There's nothing to try.
-
Those questions do not ensure everyone will come the same conclusion.
Is god a myth?
Your questions confirm what I said. If YOU like it you might say it is the word of god, if you don't it's myth.
This is cherry picking.
The words of the OT are the Holy Scriptures that Christ and the disciples knew and referred to.
They are not myths and do not need to be.
Because you don't know God and because you have no faith, it matters not. The truth won't change.
Gods words are true and you have been given the way in the OT and NT to find out if true.
The truth is you have no interest as to if really the truth.
-
The words of the OT are the Holy Scriptures that Christ and the disciples knew and referred to.
They are not myths and do not need to be.
Because you don't know God and because you have no faith, it matters not. The truth won't change.
Gods words are true and you have been given the way in the OT and NT to find out if true.
The truth is you have no interest as to if really the truth.
More assertions no evidence!
-
The words of the OT are the Holy Scriptures that Christ and the disciples knew and referred to.
They are not myths and do not need to be.
Because you don't know God and because you have no faith, it matters not. The truth won't change.
Gods words are true and you have been given the way in the OT and NT to find out if true.
The truth is you have no interest as to if really the truth.
So you think ALL the stuff in the OT came from an all loving god?
If so, why does your god condone slavery, and mass murder?
Do you condone slavery and mass murder?
-
So if god asked you to sacrifice one of your children, you would obey trusting it to know best?
That is what you never learn... God would NEVER ask us to sacrifice our children.
We see that clearly from the events of Abraham and his teachings in the OT.
31 You shall not worship the Lord your God in that way, for every abominable thing that the Lord hates they have done for their gods, for they even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods.
God made it clear that human sacrifices are not the way of God.
So we know if asked it would not be God.
Just as when Christ was tested...
He never put God to the test. He knew the bible and he knew what was written was true,
But he did not need to test God to know God would do it. He answered according to the scriptures.
If you be the Son of God,
3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
Jesus never sought to prove himself... He said "Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God."
He did not need to prove to anyone he was the Son of God. He is the Son of God.
God made it clear at the very beginning he would not allow the children to be sacrificed and made it clear thoughout.
He hated human sacrifices.
With Christ it was different we were about to die a death both spiritually and physically because of the Sin of Adam.
God allowed Christ to offer himself freely the sinless for the sinner to save us.
No greater love is there than to lie down your life for another. Totally different isn't it than murdering your child for an act of worship to an idol/pagan god.
-
Go ahead.Bullshit. This doesn't prove - your word - the alleged resurrection of a man two thousand years ago.There's nothing to try.
When you have obeyed Christs words come back and let us know....
You are a coward you only have to obey Christs words so clearly you really are denial. You have his words in the NT and the Word of God in the OT. Do as they say and then tell us it isn't true. Till you do your words mean absolutely nothing you cannot speak out against them unless you have tried the way they have given. Go on try it...
You won't because you have no intention of knowing or wanting to know if what you say can be proved wrong by obeying Christ. You are not truthful to yourself.
-
So you think ALL the stuff in the OT came from an all loving god?
If so, why does your god condone slavery, and mass murder?
Do you condone slavery and mass murder?
Read the bible.
It will stop you make inexcusable mistakes in your thinking and so writing.
-
You are a coward you only have to obey Christs words so clearly you really are denial. You have his words in the NT and the Word of God in the OT. Do as they say and then tell us it isn't true.
Plenty have done exactly that, including several members here.
Needless to say, your only "response" to this (to you) inconvenient and uncomfortable fact is to wheel out a witless No True Scotsman fallacy.
-
Read the bible.
It will stop you make inexcusable mistakes in your thinking and so writing.
Read it. I condones slavery.
Have you read it?
Do you condone slavery?
-
Dear Berational,
What spin!! First you accuse me of cherry picking and now, acting like a politician, nice.
I don't put any spin on slavery in the Bible, slavery was going on long before the Bible was even written, what the Bible did say regarding keeping slaves for the people of that time at that moment ( who, why, where, what, when, how ) there was rules, if you kept slaves you had to abide by the rules, slavery is man made, not God made.
I think you believe God can be found in the bible but you DO cherry pick as you select only the good bits that chime with YOUR interpretation of God.
I do think God can be found in the Bible, as in any great work of art, God is the best in us trying to speak out, you will find God in any great piece of literature, if those words make you stop and think, if they take you out of yourself, if they touch you at a level that makes you think about your own humanity, that's God talking, the writer has been touched by the divine and you in turn when you read it are also touched by that same divinity, all the great writers of history, Shakespeare ( although I don't get the guy ) Wordsworth, Milton, Blake and for me personally, Pratchett and Kipling.
You can call it cherry picking but for me the parts of the Bible which talk about God massacring thousands or sending plaque's, I have to stop and think why ( who, what, when, why, where, how ) and it usually takes me back to the writer or I search for a deeper meaning, that is the purpose of the Bible, to make you think, to use your God given intelligence.
I am happy to take the whole bible warts and all and see quite clearly it was written by people of the time. This is why slavery and mass killing is in because it would seem fine to them.
Once again we agree but the Bible has a message for all humanity, you just have to search.
Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
Ooops, and as I write this our Sass says good morning, morning Sass I hope you have a lovely day.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Berational,
What spin!! First you accuse me of cherry picking and now, acting like a politician, nice.
I don't put any spin on slavery in the Bible, slavery was going on long before the Bible was even written, what the Bible did say regarding keeping slaves for the people of that time at that moment ( who, why, where, what, when, how ) there was rules, if you kept slaves you had to abide by the rules, slavery is man made, not God made.
I do think God can be found in the Bible, as in any great work of art, God is the best in us trying to speak out, you will find God in any great piece of literature, if those words make you stop and think, if they take you out of yourself, if they touch you at a level that makes you think about your own humanity, that's God talking, the writer has been touched by the divine and you in turn when you read it are also touched by that same divinity, all the great writers of history, Shakespeare ( although I don't get the guy ) Wordsworth, Milton, Blake and for me personally, Pratchett and Kipling.
You can call it cherry picking but for me the parts of the Bible which talk about God massacring thousands or sending plaque's, I have to stop and think why ( who, what, when, why, where, how ) and it usually takes me back to the writer or I search for a deeper meaning, that is the purpose of the Bible, to make you think, to use your God given intelligence.
Once again we agree but the Bible has a message for all humanity, you just have to search.
Ooops, and as I write this our Sass says good morning, morning Sass I hope you have a lovely day.
Gonnagle.
So you think god saw the slavery that man had invented, and just proposed some rule?
That's your spin to make your god all loving?
Was murder and theft man made, as he sort of prohibited them in the commandments, but said nothing about not keeping slaves, just some rules.
Do you think we should still keep slaves, in accordance with your loving gods rules of course?
This is what I mean about spin. You know the bible condones slavery, you know slavery is wrong, you also know that your god must condone slavery with his rules, so you spin it to be not too bad.
Do you understand how this has warped your thinking.
I am sure YOU would condemn slavery, and would have written a commandment forbidding it, but your god did not do this.
How do you square an all loving god, with the keeping and owning of another human being?
-
That is what you never learn... God would NEVER ask us to sacrifice our children.
We see that clearly from the events of Abraham and his teachings in the OT.
31 You shall not worship the Lord your God in that way, for every abominable thing that the Lord hates they have done for their gods, for they even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods.
God made it clear that human sacrifices are not the way of God.
So we know if asked it would not be God.
Just as when Christ was tested...
He never put God to the test. He knew the bible and he knew what was written was true,
But he did not need to test God to know God would do it. He answered according to the scriptures.
If you be the Son of God,
3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
Jesus never sought to prove himself... He said "Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God."
He did not need to prove to anyone he was the Son of God. He is the Son of God.
God made it clear at the very beginning he would not allow the children to be sacrificed and made it clear thoughout.
He hated human sacrifices.
With Christ it was different we were about to die a death both spiritually and physically because of the Sin of Adam.
God allowed Christ to offer himself freely the sinless for the sinner to save us.
No greater love is there than to lie down your life for another. Totally different isn't it than murdering your child for an act of worship to an idol/pagan god.
But god apparently asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, and Abraham was prepared to do so, what an evil creep he was if the story was true. He should have told god where to stick such an evil suggestion!
You read the Bible wearing rose coloured specs!
-
if I had a quid for everytime he mentioned slavery I would have enough for a weekend in Blackpool.
Gonnagle.
Or a night out in and around the hostelries of Bridgeton listening to Matt McGinn impersonators.
-
Dear Khatru,
Are you kiddin! the price of a pint in Brigton, I could be drunk as a skunk for months, and I don't think you get many Matt Mcginn impersonators in sunny Brigton, he doesn't sing the right songs or wrong songs depending on the colour of yer vest :P :P
Gonnagle.
-
Hi Gonners,
I don't put any spin on slavery in the Bible, slavery was going on long before the Bible was even written, what the Bible did say regarding keeping slaves for the people of that time at that moment ( who, why, where, what, when, how ) there was rules, if you kept slaves you had to abide by the rules, slavery is man made, not God made.
Isn't that a bit like dealing with child abuse by setting down rules for giving them a sweet afterwards? Why wouldn't a morally good God have said instead "slavery is wrong" - maybe by junking the petty jealousy commandment about worshipping false gods and putting it in there instead? Seems like an odd sense of priorities otherwise.
-
Dear Blue,
Oh for the Love of...................! I know where you and Berational are coming from, simple fact is God said nothing about keeping slaves, slavery is man made, but then you ask, why did God not step in!! he has ( he for a given he ) but we don't listen, it is all there but we keep on with our greed, pride, ego, but one day we all will have to listen, it is all over this forum, from atheists, Muslims, Christians and all other points of the compass, we need to learn to live together in peace, but if we keep on thinking we know better than God, then our children's children will be cursing our generation, asking how the frack did we get in this mess.
Oh and by the way, I am not asking you to start worshipping God, just heed his words, which are universal, Love your Neighbour as Yourself.
Now go in peace brother and sin no more, sorry you don't believe in sin, well just be a very nice person, which I am sure you are, give Vlad a big sloppy kiss and tell him you Love him :P :P
Gonnagle.
-
I know where you and Berational are coming from, simple fact is God said nothing about keeping slaves, slavery is man made, but then you ask, why did God not step in!! he has ( he for a given he ) but we don't listen, it is all there...
It's all where? How do you know what this god of yours has or hasn't said?
-
Dear Stranger,
I will give you a clue, I am a follower of Christ ;)
Gonnagle.
-
Yo Gonners,
Oh for the Love of...................! I know where you and Berational are coming from, simple fact is God said nothing about keeping slaves, slavery is man made, but then you ask, why did God not step in!! he has ( he for a given he ) but we don't listen, it is all there but we keep on with our greed, pride, ego, but one day we all will have to listen, it is all over this forum, from atheists, Muslims, Christians and all other points of the compass, we need to learn to live together in peace...
I'm all for living in peace, believe me. The point though is that some would posit a morally good "God" who set down some rules in a book for how we should behave. Some of those rules concern not whether keeping slaves was a bad idea, but rather how they should be kept. Not sure how you think that promotes harmonious co-existence if you happen to be one of those slaves, but either way qualitatively I really don't see the difference between that and saying "give them a sweet afterwards" rather than addressing the real issue of child abuse being wrong to start with. If you really are a moral god concerned to set down some rules, surely you'd start with the basic rights and wrong wouldn't you rather than focus on the peripherals?
...but if we keep on thinking we know better than God, then our children's children will be cursing our generation, asking how the frack did we get in this mess.
That's called the reification fallacy - you can't think you know "better than God" when you've been given no reason to think there to be this God in the first place. Rather this conversation concerns the contradictions and inconsistencies in the narratives of those who would claim "God".
Oh and by the way, I am not asking you to start worshipping God, just heed his words, which are universal, Love your Neighbour as Yourself.
Again, you assume this "He" and that "His" words have been recorded anywhere. Like almost everyone else though, I'm inherently altruistic and so my default is to treat others as well as I'm able in any case.
Now go in peace brother and sin no more, sorry you don't believe in sin, well just be a very nice person, which I am sure you are, give Vlad a big sloppy kiss and tell him you Love him :P :P
No, I don't believe in "sin" in the religious sense - and nor in reality do you I suspect, not least because all that murdering of your neighbours for gathering kindling on the sabbath and such like would be too exhausting for you.
I'd be happy to throw Trollboy as many kisses as you'd like by the way, only he'd only reply with a, "so you think chucking bricks at me is ok now do you?" type straw man. 'twas ever thus.
-
I will give you a clue, I am a follower of Christ ;)
But how do you know what he said or says?
-
Yo Gonners,
I'm all for living in peace, believe me. The point though is that some would posit a morally good "God" who set down some rules in a book for how we should behave. Some of those rules concern not whether keeping slaves was a bad idea, but rather how they should be kept. Not sure how you think that promotes harmonious co-existence if you happen to be one of those slaves, but either way qualitatively I really don't see the difference between that and saying "give them a sweet afterwards" rather than addressing the real issue of child abuse being wrong to start with. If you really are a moral god concerned to set down some rules, surely you'd start with the basic rights and wrong wouldn't you rather than focus on the peripherals?
That's called the reification fallacy - you can't think you know "better than God" when you've been given no reason to think there to be this God in the first place. Rather this conversation concerns the contradictions and inconsistencies in the narratives of those who would claim "God".
Again, you assume this "He" and that "His" words have been recorded anywhere. Like almost everyone else though, I'm inherently altruistic and so my default is to treat others as well as I'm able in any case.
No, I don't believe in "sin" in the religious sense - and nor in reality do you I suspect, not least because all that murdering of your neighbours for gathering kindling on the sabbath and such like would be too exhausting for you.
I'd be happy to throw Trollboy as many kisses as you'd like by the way, only he'd only reply with a, "so you think chucking bricks at me is ok now do you?" type straw man. 'twas ever thus.
Vintage Johnny Speight.
-
But how do you know what he said or says?
illumination by the holy spirit.
-
Dear Stranger,
How do I know, it all rings true for me, the more I read, the more I learn, it all comes winging its way back to Christ, now you can accuse me of cherry picking, it could be my confirmation bias, sue me, it is true for me ( me ).
Oh and it works, you just have to practice, practice until it becomes second nature, I am still practising, one day I love my neighbour, the next I am thinking, wanker, I will take the bins out next week.
Gonnagle.
-
How do I know, it all rings true for me, the more I read, the more I learn, it all comes winging its way back to Christ, now you can accuse me of cherry picking, it could be my confirmation bias, sue me, it is true for me ( me ).
It sounds like calling what you think is right "Christ". Probably because some of what he is reported to have said chimes with modern notions of "good"...
Oh and it works, you just have to practice, practice until it becomes second nature, I am still practising, one day I love my neighbour, the next I am thinking, wanker, I will take the bins out next week.
What do you mean by "it works"? If it "works", why don't Christians agree?
-
illumination by the holy spirit.
The odd thing about those who think themselves to have been so "illuminated" is that the Jesus/Melanesian Tree Frog god/whatever they think did it didn't also think it worth providing them with a logically consistent argument to distinguish their claims from just guessing.
Jesus: "I hereby illuminate you."
Miserable wretch: "Thank you Big Guy. How should I tell others of this wondrous event?"
Jesus: "Here's a list of logically hopeless arguments. Try those."
Miserable wretch: "But won't people think I'm a bit dim, and almost certainly wrong if I do that?"
Jesus: "Listen pal, we all have our crosses to bear..."
-
An encounter with God in Christ is often the ultimate on knowing how wrong you can be and I know Gonnagle has related his experience on this forum.
Therefore the suggestion that Christ is what you think is right is of the mark particularly when we know what you think being right entails.
-
"A
n strongly held belief that you've had an encounter with God in Christ is often the ultimate on telling yourself that you're knowing how wrong you can be and I know Gonnagle has related his experience on this forum."
Just fixed that for Trollboy.
Therefore the suggestion that Christ is what you think is right is of the mark particularly when we know what you think being right entails.
Ah, the unwarranted "therefore" after the false premise schtick again. Always a welcome return visitor around these parts.
-
The odd thing about those who think themselves to have been so "illuminated" is that the Jesus/Melanesian Tree Frog god/whatever they think did it didn't also think it worth providing them with a logically consistent argument to distinguish their claims from just guessing.
Jesus: "I hereby illuminate you."
Miserable wretch: "Thank you Big Guy. How should I tell others of this wondrous event?"
Jesus: "Here's a list of logically hopeless arguments. Try those."
Miserable wretch: "But won't people think I'm a bit dim, and almost certainly wrong if I do that?"
Jesus: "Listen pal, we all have our crosses to bear..."
At least when Jesus says he is going to illuminate people a light goes on.
When you appear not only does the lighting go off the heating goes off as well.
-
At least when Jesus says he is going to illuminate people a light goes on.
What a pity that for so many it appears to be a 5W bulb.
-
What a pity that for so many it appears to be a 5W bulb.
No.....That's the bulb which comes on just over your head whenever you have an idea.
-
Very poor.
-
Shakes,
What a pity that for so many it appears to be a 5W bulb.
And that it's made of unicorn tears, filled with Scotch mist and powered by pixies on a treadmill - which presumably why the Trollboys of this world resort to insult when their assertions are so readily undone.
-
Very poor.
I thought it was funny which at the end of the day is what counts.
-
The odd thing about those who think themselves to have been so "illuminated" is...............
They realised they had been wrong about many things....................
I'm not sure you have that capacity and if you do do you have the capacity to own up given the commitments you have made to certain declarations?
-
Dear Stranger,
What do you mean by "it works"? If it "works", why don't Christians agree?
Christians don't agree because of Churchianity, they don't listen to their inner voice they listen to their Church, and it works simply by walking the walk, first try and then find God, Karen Armstrong brought that brilliantly home to me, she talks of following the message first and then you will find God, in another of her books she talked about a pupil of Confucius or Buddha who asked, how do I find God, he was told, never mind finding God go and find yourself first.
Gonnagle.
-
Shakes,
And that it's made of unicorn tears, filled with Scotch mist and powered by pixies on a treadmill -
What...................... you mean like moral relativism?
-
What...................... you mean like moral relativism?
In which we see Trollboy crash and burn where the topic was discussed, then pop up elsewhere to repeat his mistake as if nothing had happened.
Contemptible, but not unexpected.
-
In which we see Trollboy crash and burn where the topic was discussed, then pop up elsewhere to repeat his mistake as if nothing had happened.
Contemptible, but not unexpected.
Crashed and burnt Hillside?........who shot me down?..................Von Richthovens ghost?
My recollection was that I withdrew that evening of my own accord because you were overheating and about to attack the axminster.
-
My recollection was that I withdrew that evening of my own accord because you were overheating and about to attack the axminster.
Your arguments consisted of nothing but appeal to consequences and a false dichotomy - you appeared to just give up...
-
Christians don't agree because of Churchianity, they don't listen to their inner voice they listen to their Church, and it works simply by walking the walk, first try and then find God, Karen Armstrong brought that brilliantly home to me, she talks of following the message first and then you will find God, in another of her books she talked about a pupil of Confucius or Buddha who asked, how do I find God, he was told, never mind finding God go and find yourself first.
Still sounds like calling your own conscience "god", for no readily apparent reason....
-
Dear Stranger,
Christians don't agree because of Churchianity, they don't listen to their inner voice they listen to their Church, and it works simply by walking the walk, first try and then find God, Karen Armstrong brought that brilliantly home to me, she talks of following the message first and then you will find God, in another of her books she talked about a pupil of Confucius or Buddha who asked, how do I find God, he was told, never mind finding God go and find yourself first.
Gonnagle.
Too right!
-
Dear Stranger,
No argument from me, what is God?? Your conscience, the air we breathe, water, a neuron sparking away inside our tiny minds, it's all God, God is no-thing, Wigs is crazy, God is everything and more. :) :)
Dear Brownie,
Too right!
We should start our own Church, but we need a good schism, not a proper Church until we have had a damn good schism :P
Gonnagle.
-
Your arguments consisted of nothing but appeal to consequences and a false dichotomy - you appeared to just give up...
No it was more than that. I make no appeal to consequences and it was all pointed out...particularly what an unproductive theory moral relativism is and particularly that it effectively makes no comment on what is right or wrong.
You obviously just see what you want to see.
-
Some,
Your arguments consisted of nothing but appeal to consequences and a false dichotomy - you appeared to just give up...
Quite so, underpinned by lashings of assertion - "moral relativism is disproven because, um, well, because I say so OK?"
What's odd is that - if he actually did have an argument for his binary model (objective morality vs not "real" morality) then presumably he'd have bothered using it instead. Maybe too he could have shared with us why it's perfectly possible for people to have and to act on "real" opinions on all sorts of other matters – the law, the arts etc – without recourse to claims of absolutes, but for some unknown reason he carves out morality as a special case.
As always with Trollboy, he'll never answer a question though so I guess we'll never know.
Ah well.
-
I thought it was funny which at the end of the day is what counts.
Impressively Christ-like. Go you.
-
I make no appeal to consequences and it was all pointed out...
Okaaaaayyyy....
particularly what an unproductive theory moral relativism...
...and there comes an appeal to consequences. Priceless!
...is and particularly that it effectively makes no comment on what is right or wrong.
...closely followed by the flat wrong assertion with no argument of any kind to support it. Maybe he should at least let all those moral philosophers know that they're not commenting on right and wrong after all, at least according to his bonkers binary model?
-
Okaaaaayyyy....
...and there comes an appeal to consequences. Priceless!
...closely followed by the flat wrong assertion with no argument of any kind to support it. Maybe he should at least let all those moral philosophers know that they're not commenting on right and wrong after all, at least according to the bonkers binary model?
I need not say there is therefore moral reality. I might say that there could be.
All I have done is to call into question, what of morality is left if no moral position is right or wrong which is the conclusion of moral relativism.
In other words how does moral relativity define morality?
On you go then.
-
I need not say there is therefore moral reality. I might say that there could be.
In which Trollboy attempts a negative proof fallacy - there could be a invisible teapot orbiting the sun too. So?
All I have done is to call into question, what of morality is left if no moral position is right or wrong which is the conclusion of moral relativism.
In which Trollboy lies about what moral relativism entails by attempting to sneak in the notion that "right" and "wrong" must be absolute to be "real" - something moral relativism neither claims nor requires.
In other words how does moral relativity define morality?
In which Trollboy forgets that he's been told many times already that morality is "defined" probabilistically, just like matters of law, the arts etc are defined probabilistically too with no apparent conceptual difficulties.
On you go then.
In which Trollboy attempts the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.
-
No argument from me, what is God?? Your conscience, the air we breathe, water, a neuron sparking away inside our tiny minds, it's all God, God is no-thing, Wigs is crazy, God is everything and more. :) :)
I still don't see why you want to call all that "god" (and associate it with religion and church) and what, exactly, the "and more" bit is... :-\
-
In which Trollboy attempts a negative proof fallacy - there could be a invisible teapot orbiting the sun too. So?
In which Trollboy lies about what moral relativism entails by attempting to sneak in the notion that "right" and "wrong" must be absolute to be "real" - something moral relativism neither claims nor requires.
In which Trollboy forgets that he's been told many times already that morality is "defined" probabilistically, just like matters of law, the arts etc are defined probabilistically too with no apparent conceptual difficulties.
In which Trollboy attempts the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.
If one is promoting moral relativism that is a positive assertion and you have no less a burden of proof so go ahead Hot shot.
-
In which Trollboy attempts a negative proof fallacy - there could be a invisible teapot orbiting the sun too. So?
In which Trollboy lies about what moral relativism entails by attempting to sneak in the notion that "right" and "wrong" must be absolute to be "real" - something moral relativism neither claims nor requires.
In which Trollboy forgets that he's been told many times already that morality is "defined" probabilistically, just like matters of law, the arts etc are defined probabilistically too with no apparent conceptual difficulties.
In which Trollboy attempts the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.
Bluehillside and another ultimate ''Four candles'' gambit.
-
All I have done is to call into question, what of morality is left if no moral position is right or wrong which is the conclusion of moral relativism.
In other words how does moral relativity define morality?
The question was answered repeatedly - you just don't like, and won't accept, that it's complicated and messy, rather than clear-cut and objective.
This is a classic appeal to consequences: a textbook example.
-
If one is promoting moral relativism that is a positive assertion and you have no less a burden of proof so go ahead Hot shot.
In which Trollboy attempts the going nuclear fallacy - "Hey, if I'm guessing so must you be even though all the observable evidence for moral relativism is conceptually equivalent to the evidence for legal relativism, aesthetic relativism etc with which I have no problem because I don't use those examples as supposed evidence for "God":
http://stephenlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/going-nuclear.html
-
If one is promoting moral relativism that is a positive assertion and you have no less a burden of proof so go ahead Hot shot.
Objective morality would require that it exists is some form that is independent of the opinions and attitudes in individuals' minds and codified in the various laws of various cultures. It up to you to provide some evidence for that. Something you have spectacularly failed to do...
-
Bluehillside and another ultimate ''Four candles'' gambit.
In which Trollboy posts four mistakes, receives four rebuttals in response and then attempts a diversionary avoidance post...
...while still his eager audience awaits his explanation finally of why morals must be absolute to be "real", to have "authority" etc, but the law, the arts etc don't have to be.
-
Objective morality would require that it exists is some form that is independent of the opinions and attitudes in individuals' minds and codified in the various laws of various cultures. It up to you to provide some evidence for that. Something you have spectacularly failed to do...
Moral relativism is predicated on moral realism being wrong.
It states that no idea of Good or evil has primacy over any other
but what are these notions of Good or bad that they have determined have no primacy? Moral relativity cannot say even though these ideas are supposedly intrinsic to it.
It isn't even wrong, answers nothing and doesn't arbitrate and once you know it's truth(how could one?) you couldn't honestly act in anyway to favour one position over another.
-
You are so out of touch that you have no idea that the children of God, trust their maker.
Abraham, knew God had promised the covenant promise through Issac.
He had faith that even if Isaac died that somehow God could raise him from the dead and do all he had promised.
But more than anything Abraham loved God not just because of the promise but because God was who he said he was.
God had never intended for Abrahams son to die and even provided a sacrifice. It also taught a lesson that human sacrifice
was not something God wanted. Abraham never sacrificed his servants or people to God.
Abraham so loved God he was willing to sacrifice his own son. Which showed he genuinely had a relationship with Gd.
God so loved the world that he gave his only son that whosoever believeth on him should not perish but have eternal life.
Not sacrificed as a an animal or ritually, Christ paid the price that sinners paid for punishment according to the Law.
We see the person who wrongly promises to sacrifice the first thing to greet him for winning in battle is the mans only daughter.
The man should not have promised God something God does not want. Human sacrifices are an abomination to him.
But his daughter upon hearing willingly gives her life to keep her Fathers promise.
Her life was not his to give. She willingly gave it up. It showed two things... Genuine faith and belief in God and how we should not to others what we do not want done to us. God just wants thanks and that is the sacrifice acceptable to him to do the right thing.
We see that Abrahams trust was being tested and his love of God.
He loved God so much he would not hold his son back. But we see God did not want him to sacrifice his son and never intended him to sacrifice his son. The LORD God provided an alternative sacrifice.
It was clear at the very beginning that God does not want and never has wanted human Sacrifices.
He just wants us to love him and clearly that love would not include human sacrifice.
He also wanted us to love others. It is a clear message.
The moral of the above tale of woe being "Never leave your child alone with a Fundamental Christian."
So, remember a few weeks ago when I first asked you whether you'd kill a child if your deity of choice commanded it?
Why didn't you just say "Yes" back then and you could have spared us the histrionics.
-
So if god asked you to sacrifice one of your children, you would obey trusting it to know best?
In a New York Minute!
-
The resurrection of Christ can be proved. If you obey his words you will know if what he says is true.
Try it. But the truth is the failing is on your own part. You won't try it.
Remember, back then Jesus' resurrection was no big deal.
-
The resurrection of Christ can be proved. If you obey his words you will know if what he says is true.
Try it. But the truth is the failing is on your own part. You won't try it.
Sorry
I forgot to ask you to share your proof with us. Show us that your god of choice is for real and I'll await your name going i to the history books as the first person to demonstrate that their ju-ju is real.
-
Moral relativism is predicated on moral realism being wrong.
In which Trollboy fails to realise that moral relativism is no more predicated on "moral realism" being wrong than natural childbirth theory is predicated on stork theory being wrong.
It states that no idea of Good or evil has primacy over any other
In which Trollboy tells another lie about moral relativism, failing to spot that the arguments of moral relativists propose that some positions are merely to be preferred over others on the basis of the available evidence and reasoning, and thus are probabilistically right or wrong. You know, like judges do in courts of law when they exercise their authority on the same conceptual basis.
...but what are these notions of Good or bad that they have determined have no primacy? Moral relativity cannot say even though these ideas are supposedly intrinsic to it.
In which Trollboy repeats the lie as his premise and attempts an argument from ignorance fallacy on the back of it.
It isn't even wrong, answers nothing and doesn't arbitrate and once you know it's truth(how could one?) you couldn't honestly act in anyway to favour one position over another.
In which Trollboy tells a few more fibs and then blunders straight back into an argumentum ad consequentiam. Again.
-
In which Trollboy fails to realise that moral realism is no more predicated on "moral realism" being wrong than natural childbirth theory is predicated on stork theory being wrong.
In which Trollboy tells another lie about moral relativism, failing to spot that the arguments of moral relativists propose that some positions are merely to be preferred over others on the basis of the available evidence and reasoning, and thus are probabilistically right or wrong.
In which Trollboy repeats the lie as his premise and attempts an argument from ignorance fallacy on the back of it.
In which Trollboy tells a few more fibs and then blunders straight back into an argumentum ad consequentiam. Again.
Well at least some effort at describing what moral relativism is although his idea of something probably being right or wrong is not in the spirit of actual moral relativism...........an E minus I'm afraid ......................and of course moral relativism and it's criticisms are available on Wikipedia.
-
Moral relativism is predicated on moral realism being wrong.
It states that no idea of Good or evil has primacy over any other
but what are these notions of Good or bad that they have determined have no primacy? Moral relativity cannot say even though these ideas are supposedly intrinsic to it.
It isn't even wrong, answers nothing and doesn't arbitrate and once you know it's truth(how could one?) you couldn't honestly act in anyway to favour one position over another.
Another appeal to consequences and totally ignoring the problem facing your own position (yet again).
Look, it really isn't hard to imagine why we might have a collective sense of morality, without it being fixed or objective. We have, as humans, certain evolved traits; cooperation, empathy and so on. Out of those come some sort of sense of the "right way to behave" (observed in other animals too). It is then complicated by our sophisticated communication and social structures. The result being a sort of informal contract of behaviour. Obviously this varies from time to time and culture to culture.
It's an important part of all our lives, so we argue about it, try to set ideals and so on.
Now, why not tell us where you think objective morality might reside and give even the hint of a smidgen of evidence for it...? (As opposed to making up shit about the alternatives and telling us about the nasty consequences.)
-
Well at least some effort at describing what moral relativism is although his idea of something probably being right or wrong is not in the spirit of actual moral relativism...........an E minus I'm afraid ......................and of course moral relativism and it's criticisms are available on Wikipedia.
In which Trollboy keeps on lying in the hope that no-one notices that relativistic moral positions no more claim or require the existence of absolutes than do relativistic legal or aesthetic opinions to be considered sufficiently probabilistically right or wrong – ie, "real" enough – to enable the exercise of their "authority".
-
illumination by the holy spirit.
Sass has known God via the holy spirit since childhood. She believes Christ was not and is not God. You presumably believe he was and is.
-
Dear Khatru,
Are you kiddin! the price of a pint in Brigton, I could be drunk as a skunk for months, and I don't think you get many Matt Mcginn impersonators in sunny Brigton, he doesn't sing the right songs or wrong songs depending on the colour of yer vest :P :P
Gonnagle.
I have to confess that in the days when I drank in Brigton I never saw any Matt McGinn impersonators. The Park Bar, The Bell and The Regent being my inns of choice.
-
Dicky,
Sass has known God via the holy spirit since childhood. She believes Christ was not and is not God. You presumably believe he was and is.
Perhaps Trollboy got the 20 watt illumination but Sassy got the 40 watt version.
Or maybe vice versa.
-
Dicky,
Perhaps Trollboy got the 20 watt illumination but Sassy got the 40 watt version.
Or maybe vice versa.
Maybe neither got the illumination because they could not decide how many Christian posters it takes to change the light bulb
-
Dearie Me,
Abraham and Issac, it's a bloody Myth, a story with a truth in it,
What is the truth in question?
you don't sacrifice children, maybe a small god would ask you to sacrifice a child,
In this myth, your god did ask Abraham to sacrifice a child. Is the truth in the myth that your god id a small god?
but God would not, why would a God who can look into your very heart need to test you, bloody stupid, get over it Christians there are a lot of Myths in your Bible.
I think we would agree on that but I would probably disagree on what percentage of the Bible is a myth.
-
Dear Jeremyp,
What is the truth in question?
A very simple truth, child/human sacrifice is wrong.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Jeremyp,
A very simple truth, child/human sacrifice is wrong.
Gonnagle.
But sacrificing Jesus was correct?
-
But Jesus WASN'T sacrificed, was He as He rose again. WE never rise again ?!!?!?
Gonn
A very simple truth, child/human sacrifice is wrong.
Yes and that's why groups like IS are sooooo wrong !!! Mind you, what exactly is going to war anyway if not for possible suicide/killing ???
Nick
-
Dear Berational,
But sacrificing Jesus was correct?
Don't know if the word correct is right, but it had to be.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Jeremyp,
A very simple truth, child/human sacrifice is wrong.
Gonnagle.
If that is the message, it's a very convoluted way of going about delivering it - especially to those who already know it. The insanity of the demand points to something deeper? - Even more, the insanity of Abraham's resolution to comply.
-
Dear Berational,
Don't know if the word correct is right, but it had to be.
Gonnagle.
Why?
I thought your god could do anything?
Again, you have to spin stuff in the bible, when it offends you. Then, it becomes myth or a story with a truth, but it's not literally true. This kind of reinterpretation of the word of god has been happening a long time. Thank goodness!
-
Dear Udayana, ( forgive me for being nosey, but the source and meaning of your name, just curious )
As I have been trying to explain to Berational, the who, why, where, when, what and how.
Kipling's Six Honest Serving Men.
Where you start, who told the story, the Shaman, the Priest, the Bard, the keepers of history, you need to remember who you are dealing with, these Myths for a long time were not written down, someone had to remember these stories, pass them on to the next generation.
I caught a twenty pound Salmon yesterday ( no I don't fish ) but tomorrow that fish will have grown, why, because I am human, it's what we do.
You would be out of the Shaman business if your stories were boring.
At the time this story was doing the rounds, so I am reliably told by Karen Armstrong, various religions practiced child sacrifice, this was the story tellers way of saying, our religion does not practice child sacrifice.
Gonnagle.
-
Strange that, Gonners, because I get a totally different message from the same story, and not a very pleasant one at that. So, however it originated, the version we have in Genesis 22 suggests that the writer made a total pig's ear of the story if the original idea was simply to show that your religion did not practise child sacrifice.
-
Dear enki,
True, but you are reading the story through 21st century eye's, imagine yourself back to a time with no written word, no telly, no internet, sitting in a tent, the smell of burning cow dung, your only source of entertainment, the mad Shaman with his wild stories, he may be mad but he is the Holy man, the keeper of your tribes history.
Which story do you prefer, look pal we don't sacrifice children, fair enough, calm down mad Holy man, or, remember Abraham, the great Father of our tribe, God tested him, now yer talking Mad Holy man, this is why today ( today being thousands of years ago ) we don't sacrifice children.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear enki,
True, but you are reading the story through 21st century eye's, imagine yourself back to a time with no written word, no telly, no internet, sitting in a tent, the smell of burning cow dung, your only source of entertainment, the mad Shaman with his wild stories, he may be mad but he is the Holy man, the keeper of your tribes history.
Which story do you prefer, look pal we don't sacrifice children, fair enough, calm down mad Holy man, or, remember Abraham, the great Father of our tribe, God tested him, now yer talking Mad Holy man, this is why today ( today being thousands of years ago ) we don't sacrifice children.
Gonnagle.
The reason I do not kill children has nothing to do with your reinterpreted story.
If you need it I am glad you have read it, but my morality is far superior to your bible.
I do not keep slaves for example, even though your holy book says it is permissible.
-
True, but you are reading the story through 21st century eye's, imagine yourself back to a time with no written word, no telly, no internet, sitting in a tent, the smell of burning cow dung, your only source of entertainment, the mad Shaman with his wild stories, he may be mad but he is the Holy man, the keeper of your tribes history.
Which story do you prefer, look pal we don't sacrifice children, fair enough, calm down mad Holy man, or, remember Abraham, the great Father of our tribe, God tested him, now yer talking Mad Holy man, this is why today ( today being thousands of years ago ) we don't sacrifice children.
But if this "god" thingy of yours is real, why bother with all the mad holy men and mythology? If it's got something to say, why not just come out with it in a clear and unambiguous way?
-
But if this "god" thingy of yours is real, why bother with all the mad holy men and mythology? If it's got something to say, why not just come out with it in a clear and unambiguous way?
Exactly.
Did god not foresee the problems the myths would cause in later years?
-
Dear Berational,
The reason I do not kill children has nothing to do with your reinterpreted story.
If you need it I am glad you have read it, but my morality is far superior to your bible.
I do not keep slaves for example, even though your holy book says it is permissible.
Says the 21st century, highly enlightened, able to look back and scoff human.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Berational,
Says the 21st century, highly enlightened, able to look back and scoff human.
Gonnagle.
Well yes.
Did you God not foresee this?
Why is my morality superior to the bible, yours too I would add.
Why is it that stuff is found in the bible AFTER we have discovered it?
-
Dear Berational,
Why is my morality superior to the bible, yours too I would add.
Once more for those in the cheap seats, the Bible is there to make you think not what you think.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Berational,
Once more for those in the cheap seats, the Bible is there to make you think not what you think.
Gonnagle.
Does every Christian say that, or is that just you?
Do you accept that other Christians see literal truths where you see stories to 'make you think '.
I am able to think so do you agree that don't need the bible?
-
Once more for those in the cheap seats, the Bible is there to make you think not what you think.
So, does this god have an important message for us, or not?
-
Dear Berational,
Does every Christian say that, or is that just you?
Do you accept that other Christians see literal truths where you see stories to 'make you think '.
I am able to think so do you agree that don't need the bible?
Hell yes!! That is one of my struggles, to pull Christians out of there apathy, to try and engage there brain, to not be afraid to question there faith, to look beyond the Bible, you can be a Christian and question the Bible, the whole Bible, it is there to make you think.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Stranger,
So, does this god have an important message for us, or not?
Frack me!! yes it is written into every religion in the world, a Universal law, Love thy Neighbour, but for a Christian that is only the start, when you master that you go on to build on the rest of Our Lords teachings.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Stranger,
Frack me!! yes it is written into every religion in the world, a Universal law, Love thy Neighbour, but for a Christian that is only the start, when you master that you go on to build on the rest of Our Lords teachings.
Gonnagle.
The golden rule predates the bible, so why do we need the bible?
It's also explainable by evolution
-
Frack me!! yes it is written into every religion in the world, a Universal law, Love thy Neighbour, but for a Christian that is only the start, when you master that you go on to build on the rest of Our Lords teachings.
Well first, it quite obviously isn't written into every religion in the world (past and present) - take ISIS, for a present day example.
Next, back to my previous point, why doesn't god make it all clear and unambiguous? Why all this mucking about with mythology and religions that contradict each other and that cannot be distinguished from other superstitions?
-
Some,
Next, back to my previous point, why doesn't god make it all clear and unambiguous? Why all this mucking about with mythology and religions that contradict each other and that cannot be distinguished from other superstitions?
It's worse than that isn't it? Why do it with contradictory myths and legends that present in exactly the way you'd expect them to if there was no god at all, but just a pattern-seeking species that evolved to record its attempts at explanations for the natural phenomena it observed and to ask deeper questions about the nature of existence?
-
Dear Berational,
The golden rule predates the bible, so why do we need the bible?
Really, well I never! you learn a new thing everyday.
It's also explainable by evolution
Dear Stranger,
take ISIS, for a present day example.
Yes a very good example.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Udayana, ( forgive me for being nosey, but the source and meaning of your name, just curious )
As I have been trying to explain to Berational, the who, why, where, when, what and how.
Kipling's Six Honest Serving Men.
Where you start, who told the story, the Shaman, the Priest, the Bard, the keepers of history, you need to remember who you are dealing with, these Myths for a long time were not written down, someone had to remember these stories, pass them on to the next generation.
I caught a twenty pound Salmon yesterday ( no I don't fish ) but tomorrow that fish will have grown, why, because I am human, it's what we do.
You would be out of the Shaman business if your stories were boring.
At the time this story was doing the rounds, so I am reliably told by Karen Armstrong, various religions practiced child sacrifice, this was the story tellers way of saying, our religion does not practice child sacrifice.
Gonnagle.
My name is just an alias, after this logician:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Udayana
- Does not mean that I come to the same conclusions though :)
You might be right about the way the story evolved, but then it seems to me to be more a way of recording a change from believing that human sacrifice was required to believing that it was wrong.
-
My name is just an alias, after this logician:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Udayana
- Does not mean that I come to the same conclusions though :)
You might be right about the way the story evolved, but then it seems to me to be more a way of recording a change from believing that human sacrifice was required to believing that it was wrong.
If that is the case, then the lesson was not quickly learned, since we learn from the Book of Judges that Jephthah was prepared to sacrifice his daughter.
-
Dicky,
Perhaps Trollboy got the 20 watt illumination but Sassy got the 40 watt version.
Or maybe vice versa.
Nice one! ;D ;D ;D
Funny that this god whom they both claim to know never helped either of them to express themselves in clear English....
(And it's a joy to behold to see how "knowing God" has helped Sass with her French :) )
-
If that is the case, then the lesson was not quickly learned, since we learn from the Book of Judges that Jephthah was prepared to sacrifice his daughter.
Quite!
He actually did kill his daughter, so now I am confused about the message in the book!
-
Strange that, Gonners, because I get a totally different message from the same story, and not a very pleasant one at that. So, however it originated, the version we have in Genesis 22 suggests that the writer made a total pig's ear of the story if the original idea was simply to show that your religion did not practise child sacrifice.
There's another version in old Jewish literature, apparently, and Geza Vermes suggest that this was the one that St Paul had in mind when he attempted to explain the significance of Jesus' death on the cross. This version has Isaac rushing joyfully to accept being sacrificed when his father tells him that this is what God has just told him is 'required'.
The story still stinks, though, even given Isaac's joyful compliance. It's obvious that Abraham was still prepared to think that this sort of action was just what the deity desired.
-
Dear enki,
True, but you are reading the story through 21st century eye's, imagine yourself back to a time with no written word, no telly, no internet, sitting in a tent, the smell of burning cow dung, your only source of entertainment, the mad Shaman with his wild stories, he may be mad but he is the Holy man, the keeper of your tribes history.
Which story do you prefer, look pal we don't sacrifice children, fair enough, calm down mad Holy man, or, remember Abraham, the great Father of our tribe, God tested him, now yer talking Mad Holy man, this is why today ( today being thousands of years ago ) we don't sacrifice children.
Gonnagle.
Of course, if I read this myth through 21st Century eyes then I would be concentrating on such things as child abuse and mental derangement, but I am not doing so. As I read the myth of Osiris's supposed murder I try to see certain themes which were meaningful to the people of their time coming through. In the case of Osiris and the eventual rise of Horus, it seems to reflect the importance given to the restoration of order and attitudes towards unrighteous succession, amongst other things. With the myth of Abraham and Isaac, I am reminded that what was considered meaningful for the people of that time was the idea that whatever this God desired to take place should be followed without question. In short what this bible story illustrates is a test of Abraham's total obedience to his God. Therein lies its dangerous and terrible message.
-
Dear Udayana,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Udayana
Not come across this before, thanks, nine centuries of arguing, bloody hell!! better put the kettle on, old Bluehillside thinks it is all done and dusted, I think we have only begun, again :o
Gonnagle.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Udayana
Not come across this before, thanks, nine centuries of arguing, bloody hell!! better put the kettle on, old Bluehillside thinks it is all done and dusted, I think we have only begun, again :o
Seriously, based on the "arguments" listed on that page...? :o
-
I gave up on it here:
"Nothing moves without intelligence".
Like a leaf falling from a tree for example? (Mind you, my apple tree does look as though it may have a few GCSEs at least tucked under its bark....)
-
Quite!
He actually did kill his daughter, so now I am confused about the message in the book!
Certain biblical exegetes have produced a well-spun version....
-
My name is just an alias, after this logician:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Udayana
- Does not mean that I come to the same conclusions though :)
You might be right about the way the story evolved, but then it seems to me to be more a way of recording a change from believing that human sacrifice was required to believing that it was wrong.
Just a thought, from J. B. Jordan and other expositors: In Leviticus 1:5 the "young bull" offered by an Israelite is literally "the son of the herd". A son was taking the Israelite's place. This would remind him of Abraham and Isaac. However, Isaac was not good enough to be a sacrifice. That required a sinless son. So Leviticus shows how the sacrifice of unblemished animals pointed to a sinless son of Abraham who would make the atonement that Isaac was not able to make.
-
Just a thought, from J. B. Jordan and other expositors: In Leviticus 1:5 the "young bull" offered by an Israelite is literally "the son of the herd". A son was taking the Israelite's place. This would remind him of Abraham and Isaac. However, Isaac was not good enough to be a sacrifice. That required a sinless son. So Leviticus shows how the sacrifice of unblemished animals pointed to a sinless son of Abraham who would make the atonement that Isaac was not able to make.
If the sacrifice idea had any veracity it is a very SICK concept, imo.
-
Well a red heifer would be butchered and eaten afterwards, floo. The sacrifices were not wasted.
Sacrificing to a deity is an ancient practice which predates Christianity and Judaism. A little bit was always given in thanks or petition, be it livestock from a hunt or fruit and veg.
-
Well a red heifer would be beaten and eaten afterwards, floo. The sacrifices were not wasted.
Sacrificing to a deity is an ancient practice which predates Christianity and Judaism. A little bit was always given in thanks or petition, be it livestock from a hunt or fruit and veg.
There is nothing for which to thank that evil god, imo!
-
That isn't what we were talking about floo.
-
Vengeance is mine saith the LORD, and I shall pay back in full...?
Really?
My take on the quote?
Sod off, I'll deal my oiwn vengeance out in my own way and you want to horn in - prepare to get shoved out of the way - if I want vengeance I will have it and you can sod off!
-
This particular god acts like some spiteful nasty human at his worst, eh ?!!?!?!?
If nothing can affect God in any way then why 'talk' in such a manner !!?!?
NUFF SAID !! NO god of mine - Ta very much
Nick
-
This particular god acts like some spiteful nasty human at his worst, eh ?!!?!?!?
If nothing can affect God in any way then why 'talk' in such a manner !!?!?
NUFF SAID !! NO god of mine - Ta very much
Nick
Not surprising as the Biblical god is a human creation, imo, featuring all the worst human characteristics.
-
(Just an aside, though I doubt anyone noticed, in my previous post I originally said the heifer would be ''beaten and eaten..." :o and I meant to say, 'butchered' instead of ''beaten''. I've changed it.)
-
This particular god acts like some spiteful nasty human at his worst, eh ?!!?!?!?
If nothing can affect God in any way then why 'talk' in such a manner !!?!?
NUFF SAID !! NO god of mine - Ta very much
Nick
In Deuteronomy 32:35, where the quote in the OP comes from, the context is quite important, as it shows that God is made jealous when people give glory that should be his (as our creator) to something else. Verse 21 says, "They made me jealous by what is no god and angered me with their worthless idols". Further, God admits dreading being taunted by "the enemy" (the foreign peoples through whom he punished them) who would give themselves the credit for their success against his people (v.27). Isn't it a bit narrow minded to dismiss him as spiteful or nasty?
-
In Deuteronomy 32:35, where the quote in the OP comes from, the context is quite important, as it shows that God is made jealous when people give glory that should be his (as our creator) to something else. Verse 21 says, "They made me jealous by what is no god and angered me with their worthless idols". Further, God admits dreading being taunted by "the enemy" (the foreign peoples through whom he punished them) who would give themselves the credit for their success against his people (v.27). Isn't it a bit narrow minded to dismiss him as spiteful or nasty?
Far from it, since this all-powerful god of yours can allegedly create this universe and yet still be upset at not getting all the praise and attention (in addition to doing/arranging a bit of smiting here and there), which sounds more like a self-centred immature teenager than a god.
It seems, unsurprisingly, that your god is being portrayed as behaving and reacting just like some people do!
-
In Deuteronomy 32:35, where the quote in the OP comes from, the context is quite important, as it shows that God is made jealous when people give glory that should be his (as our creator) to something else. Verse 21 says, "They made me jealous by what is no god and angered me with their worthless idols". Further, God admits dreading being taunted by "the enemy" (the foreign peoples through whom he punished them) who would give themselves the credit for their success against his people (v.27). Isn't it a bit narrow minded to dismiss him as spiteful or nasty?
What a pathetic little god in which you believe!
-
Spud
Are you bloody serious???
Jealousy is a very human failing & not one to be admired IN humans much less some ridiculous deity ?!?!!?!? ??? ::) ::)
-
Far from it, since this all-powerful god of yours can allegedly create this universe and yet still be upset at not getting all the praise and attention (in addition to doing/arranging a bit of smiting here and there), which sounds more like a self-centred immature teenager than a god.
It seems, unsurprisingly, that your god is being portrayed as behaving and reacting just like some people do!
Sometimes things are not what they seem, Gordon. God is not expecting people to behave like robots, just to acknowledge him, like by saying grace, for example.
-
Needy type, by the sound of it.
-
Spud
Are you bloody serious???
Jealousy is a very human failing & not one to be admired IN humans much less some ridiculous deity ?!?!!?!? ??? ::) ::)
Jealousy can be the right response. Like if you come home to find your wife having a candle-lit dinner with the postman. You wouldn't say, "sorry to interrupt, do carry on. I'll come back a bit later"
-
Spud
We're talking about GOD here not some silly human !?!!?
Am I mistaken in thinking God is beyond all this bollox or is all this religious bull a complete waste of time cos we're just bowing to ourselves ?????
-
Needy type, by the sound of it.
. . . and pathetic . . . and insecure . . . among other failings, very very human failings - is this further evidence that he is a human construct?
-
Man attributing human emotions to God, a bit like anthropomorphism.
-
Sometimes things are not what they seem, Gordon. God is not expecting people to behave like robots, just to acknowledge him, like by saying grace, for example.
So your god wants us to be compliant on a regular basis, such as before every meal - that sounds very much like an expectation of us being routinely robotic.
-
Sometimes things are not what they seem, Gordon. God is not expecting people to behave like robots, just to acknowledge him, like by saying grace, for example.
And you know that for a fact do you?
-
Man attributing human emotions to God, a bit like anthropomorphism.
That's theism for you.
-
That's theism for you.
Well, yeah. Unless nice emotions belong to God and rubbish ones are human. In which case there's another thing for theists to feel crap about. (Been there, done that).
-
Spud said: God is not expecting people to behave like robots, just to acknowledge him, like by saying grace, for example.
(Emphasis mine)
Religious observance can become robotic when it should be flexible; doing particular things at specified times have little to do with living faith. Some structure is helpful but we must never be slaves to it.
-
I find it very odd to talk of what God does and doesn't expect, as though that is knowable.
-
God seems to make very little contact with His Creation these days. ?!!?!?!?
-
God seems to make very little contact with His Creation these days. ?!!?!?!?
Making the presumption that human life-span, to the Christian deity, is but a second to him, maybe he has become bored with his creation and is looking at other froms of entertainment, like a kid looking for a new game for his/her X-box?
-
WELLLL Why not as it seems God has all the qualities of a spiteful child, eh ?!!?!?
-
Needy type, by the sound of it.
He doesn't need us. But there is no philosophical or objective methodological way of establishing that we don't need him.
-
No ippy, it's us projecting our own feelings onto God.
-
No ippy, it's us projecting our own feelings onto God.
Which isn't surprising as there is no convincing evidence it exists, therefore humans have created its nature to suit their own way of thinking.
-
Man attributing human emotions to God, a bit like anthropomorphism.
In te words of Sir Terry Pratchett's Death - an anthropomorphic personification. Exactly. As, in all probability, are the deities of my own pantheon.
-
No ippy, it's us projecting our own feelings onto God.
Hi there Brownie, I'm not quite sure what it is you're referring to, the Mysterons perhaps?
I would have thought we might have about as much luck projecting our own feelings onto a unicorn as projecting our own feelings onto a god, both equally as credible as each other, unless you've got any of the elusive missing evidence to the contrary?
ippy
-
He doesn't need us. But there is no philosophical or objective methodological way of establishing that we don't need him.
None is necessary. Subjectivity rules here. For years I thought I did need him: I even thought I'd experienced him on occasion. But when he refused to bequeath the tiniest smidgin of his presence when I most needed him, I realised I had to get on without being concerned whether Old Nobodaddy was there or not. Such an attitude to life seems far more enlightened, and I sometimes wonder why I was so concerned in the past. The whole thing is a wild goose chase. When the chips are down and humans are put through the mangle, it does seem part of human nature to ask if all the sufferings of life are part of some greater plan.
I'm quite content now to concede that such things do not have "ultimate meaning". Shit happens.
-
None is necessary. Subjectivity rules here. For years I thought I did need him: I even thought I'd experienced him on occasion. But when he refused to bequeath the tiniest smidgin of his presence when I most needed him, I realised I had to get on without being concerned whether Old Nobodaddy was there or not. Such an attitude to life seems far more enlightened, and I sometimes wonder why I was so concerned in the past. The whole thing is a wild goose chase. When the chips are down and humans are put through the mangle, it does seem part of human nature to ask if all the sufferings of life are part of some greater plan.
I'm quite content now to concede that such things do not have "ultimate meaning". Shit happens.
Shit happens, in huge buckets full, probably IS the ultimate meaning of life, the universe and everything, rather, of course, than 42.
-
Yes to the last 2 comments ! Good idea to feel like this, I think. ;)
How do we know we've not agreed on all this 'Leave us alone & let's see how we get on' BEFORE we came to earth? Does that make sense? Recall there's something akin to this IN The Bible. ???
Nick
-
He doesn't need us. But there is no philosophical or objective methodological way of establishing that we don't need him.
For the question even to arise, you first need to establish that 'he' exists at all. Something nobody seems able to manage in anything approaching an objective and rational way.
-
Moderator:
This thread was removed for review and is now being returned having been rolled back in order to remove a series of recent posts involving unacceptable personal comments, and also earlier derails.
N.B. This thread wasn't posted to for nearly 3 weeks, hence the posts immediately prior to this one date to late June.