Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry

[Roses]

The gods of most of the ancient world were psychos, and not many people these days get their knickers in a twist over the evils of Quetzalcoatl, Set or Jupiter.  The only reason we know about them is because scribes and prophets had certain ideas in their heads about what these gods were supposed to be like, and wrote about them on papyrus, parchment and stone. I see no reason to get so steamed up about the supposed deities behind these stories as if they actually existed (which is what LR does all the time about Yahweh - I thought you knew better). The thing about the various ideas about God in the Old Testament is that they differ. The Gods of the first two chapters of Genesis are completely different, for goodness sake: in chapter 1, he is exalted, remote and instantly creative. In chapter 2, he's a bumbling old buffer who wanders around in a garden and can't even find the humans he's formed when they hide from him.
I challenge you to argue that what Ecclesiastes or Micah wrote about God is compatible with what the authors of the Noah stories (there are of course two authors of that episode) wrote, or what the authors of Exodus wrote. God in the Bible does seem to get rather more civilised on occasion - I don't know whether this applies to the other deities of the ancient world (though doubtless their characteristics vary a bit too, depending on who is writing about them, and at which period in history).

What is of course worth getting steamed up about is very much the real subject of this thread (trying to get back on topic here   ). That is to say, those people who do believe that there is one 'god of the bible' and that he is good and just, and that any text wrenched out of context from any part of the Bible can be used to legitimise their vile and perverted attitudes and behaviour.

People who think the Biblical god is good and just are reading that book wearing rose coloured specs.

[Nearly Sane]

People who think the Biblical god is good and just are reading that book wearing rose coloured specs.

Complete non sequitur to the post you replied to which makes it look as if you didn't read it.

[Roses]

Complete non sequitur to the post you replied to which makes it look as if you didn't read it.

I did read it and that is my reply.

[Nearly Sane]

I did read it and that is my reply.

  Them it's just irrelevant, and shows no understanding of what DU posted.

[SteveH]

People who think the Biblical god is good and just are reading that book wearing rose coloured specs.

Oh ffs, say something original for once - I'm sick to bloody death of your predictable, ignorant one-liners.

[Roses]

Oh ffs, say something original for once - I'm sick to bloody death of your predictable, ignorant one-liners.

Well if you don't like what I am saying don't bother to respond, SIMPLES! Look out or I might start posting on that other forum again, now that would really please you, NOT.

[SteveH]

Your simplistic view of the biblical God is woefully inadequate. As Dicky Underpants wrote in an excellent comment recently, the picture of God develops. God is certainly a pretty unpleasant character in the earliest books of the OT, but by the time we get to the prophets, we have a God of justice and mercy, who enjoins mercy on us. "What does the Lord require of you, but to act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God?" "And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and He will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in His paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." –Isaiah 2:3–4
In the |New Testament, we have the father of Jesus Christ, a God of forgiveness and mercy, the God of the beatitudes, a world away from the cruel tribal god the OT starts out with. It's much more complex that "the god character in the bible is an evil psycho imo", so try actually reading the whole of the bible. (Incidentally, there's not really any support, in either Testament, for the traditional concept of hell as everlasting, conscious torment. The fate of the unsaved is annihilation.)

[Roses]

Your simplistic view of the biblical God is woefully inadequate. As Dicky Underpants wrote in an excellent comment recently, the picture of God develops. God is certainly a pretty unpleasant character in the earliest books of the OT, but by the time we get to the prophets, we have a God of justice and mercy, who enjoins mercy on us. "What does the Lord require of you, but to act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God?" "And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and He will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in His paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." –Isaiah 2:3–4
In the |New Testament, we have the father of Jesus Christ, a God of forgiveness and mercy, the God of the beatitudes, a world away from the cruel tribal god the OT starts out with. It's much more complex that "the god character in the bible is an evil psycho imo", so try actually reading the whole of the bible. (Incidentally, there's not really any support, in either Testament, for the traditional concept of hell as everlasting, conscious torment. The fate of the unsaved is annihilation.)

You have your views on the Bible I have mine. I have read that book from cover to cover many times. In both the OT and NT I don't see god as anything other than a highly unpleasant character if it exists and what is attributed to it is factual . Getting a girl who was engaged to be married pregnant, so that she could give birth to a son who would die a horrible death doesn't speak well of it at all. The Christian faith has often been a force for a lot of evil in the hands of extremists. If god was omnipotent it would have known the result of its actions.

[bluehillside Retd.]

SteveH,

Your simplistic view of the biblical God is woefully inadequate. As Dicky Underpants wrote in an excellent comment recently, the picture of God develops. God is certainly a pretty unpleasant character in the earliest books of the OT, but by the time we get to the prophets, we have a God of justice and mercy, who enjoins mercy on us. "What does the Lord require of you, but to act justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God?" "And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and He will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in His paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." –Isaiah 2:3–4
In the |New Testament, we have the father of Jesus Christ, a God of forgiveness and mercy, the God of the beatitudes, a world away from the cruel tribal god the OT starts out with. It's much more complex that "the god character in the bible is an evil psycho imo", so try actually reading the whole of the bible. (Incidentally, there's not really any support, in either Testament, for the traditional concept of hell as everlasting, conscious torment. The fate of the unsaved is annihilation.)

Well yes, lots of myths have changed over time. In the original 19th century German version of Goldilocks for example (which was called “The Story of the Three Bears”) the Goldilocks character was a sweary hag called “Silver Hair” and the bears were three males rather than a mother/father/son family.

The point though is that various people who think there to be a Christian god will still claim the version that appeals most – in my experience the unpleasant and intolerant will pick the unpleasant and intolerant aspects of the god of the OT, the generous and inclusive will pick the generous and inclusive aspects of the god for the NT etc. And that problem with that is that is that if you think any of it is actually true because “faith” is an epistemically valid way to justify a truth claim then you will tend to feel validated in your behaviour by whichever god you think to be portrayed most accurately.

[Spud]

Dicky, as long as these people are caught and appropriate action is taken, why get steamed up?

[Roses]

Dicky, as long as these people are caught and appropriate action is taken, why get steamed up?

One gets steamed up, as you put it, when the Bible is used in an abusive way, or one which brings in the cash. So many TV Evangelists are con merchants who take in the gullible and relieve them of their dosh. As I have mentioned before, years ago my elderly Great Aunt was taken for a ride by that horrible man Oral Roberts. She gave him several thousand pounds before the family realised what was going on and put a stop to it.

BTW does the UK have any TV Evangelists or are they exclusively an American product?

[SteveH]

BTW does the UK have any TV Evangelists or are they exclusively an American product?

Some of the yan ones have a British presence. Hemerl Hempstead, to its undying shame, hosts the British HQ of Morris Cerullo. I don't doubt we have a few home-grown examples as well.

[Roses]

Some of the yan ones have a British presence. Hemerl Hempstead, to its undying shame, hosts the British HQ of Morris Cerullo. I don't doubt we have a few home-grown examples as well.

I must admit I have never heard of that guy before.

[SteveH]

I must admit I have never heard of that guy before.

Lucky you - utter snake-oil merchant.

[Roses]

Lucky you - utter snake-oil merchant.

I have forgotten the guy's name, but not that long ago one of these US scam merchants got his gullible followers to fork out for a very high class jet so he could 'do god's work'.

[jeremyp]

not many people these days get their knickers in a twist over the evils of Quetzalcoatl, Set or Jupiter.

No, because, in Europe and North America, at least, these gods have no relevance to anybody's daily lives. 

I see no reason to get so steamed up about the supposed deities behind these stories as if they actually existed (which is what LR does all the time about Yahweh - I thought you knew better).

The followers of the god of the Bible keep trying to interfere with the lives of ordinary people based on what the believe the Bible says. For example, they don't want me to be able to go shopping on a Sunday. They want to censor the kinds of things I see on telly or at the theatre. They want to place restrictions on the kinds of people I can marry. Some of them want crazy myths from the Bible taught as facts. Others threaten to kill people just because they draw pictures of their prophet or throw gay people off tall buildings for the sin of being gay.

Don't try to pretend that the god of the Bible is in the same class as Quetzalcoatl, Set or Jupiter.

The thing about the various ideas about God in the Old Testament is that they differ. The Gods of the first two chapters of Genesis are completely different, for goodness sake: in chapter 1, he is exalted, remote and instantly creative. In chapter 2, he's a bumbling old buffer who wanders around in a garden and can't even find the humans he's formed when they hide from him.

I know that. You know that. A lot of Christians don't seem to know that.

I challenge you to argue that what Ecclesiastes or Micah wrote about God is compatible with what the authors of the Noah stories

Why should I?

What is of course worth getting steamed up about is very much the real subject of this thread (trying to get back on topic here   ). That is to say, those people who do believe that there is one 'god of the bible' and that he is good and just, and that any text wrenched out of context from any part of the Bible can be used to legitimise their vile and perverted attitudes and behaviour.

Which is ironic considering that they justify their bigotry by reference to a text which does not present a coherent picture of God but frequently represents him (why would God be a "he") as a homicidal maniac.

[Anchorman]

Some of the yan ones have a British presence. Hemerl Hempstead, to its undying shame, hosts the British HQ of Morris Cerullo. I don't doubt we have a few home-grown examples as well.

   



About the only ones I can think of are Jeff Lucas and J.John.
Neither are anything like the typical Amwerican Televangelists (Thank God!), and both use a lot of humour in their work.
Lucas has written several books with Adrian Plass (some might have heard of his  brilliant "Sacred Diaries' serie, as well as more 'serious work) called "Seriously Funny'.
J.John is a CofE minister with a gift of communication; niether is a YEC.

[jeremyp]

In the |New Testament, we have the father of Jesus Christ, a God of forgiveness and mercy, the God of the beatitudes, a world away from the cruel tribal god the OT starts out with. It's much more complex that "the god character in the bible is an evil psycho imo", so try actually reading the whole of the bible. (Incidentally, there's not really any support, in either Testament, for the traditional concept of hell as everlasting, conscious torment. The fate of the unsaved is annihilation.)

The god of the New Testament forced a pregnancy on an unmarried woman in an age where that carried a real threat of death. He caused the slaughter of a number of toddlers and babies in Bethlehem. He also arranged to have his own son strung up on a cross  when he could have just forgiven everybody.

The New Testament's god's hands are not clean.

[Spud]

SteveH,

Well yes, lots of myths have changed over time. In the original 19th century German version of Goldilocks for example (which was called “The Story of the Three Bears”) the Goldilocks character was a sweary hag called “Silver Hair” and the bears were three males rather than a mother/father/son family.

The point though is that various people who think there to be a Christian god will still claim the version that appeals most – in my experience the unpleasant and intolerant will pick the unpleasant and intolerant aspects of the god of the OT, the generous and inclusive will pick the generous and inclusive aspects of the god for the NT etc. And that problem with that is that is that if you think any of it is actually true because “faith” is an epistemically valid way to justify a truth claim then you will tend to feel validated in your behaviour by whichever god you think to be portrayed most accurately.

God is holy, that's the main thing to remember. Thus, if people become like how they are described in Genesis 6 then God is free to wipe them all out. You might not believe that is what happened, but in the story it is a just punishment. Likewise for the punishment Jesus endured on our behalf: sin came through one man, therefore one sinless man's death was sufficient to atone for the sin of all men, if they repent. Again, you may think this to be a myth, but the God in the story is consistent.
Understood rightly, an honest response to the Bible is to recognise our own sin and deal with it before judging someone else for theirs.

[Nearly Sane]

God is holy, that's the main thing to remember. Thus, if people become like how they are described in Genesis 6 then God is free to wipe them all out. You might not believe that is what happened, but in the story it is a just punishment. Likewise for the punishment Jesus endured on our behalf: sin came through one man, therefore one sinless man's death was sufficient to atone for the sin of all men, if they repent. Again, you may think this to be a myth, but the God in the story is consistent.
Understood rightly, an honest response to the Bible is to recognise our own sin and deal with it before judging someone else for theirs.

Beg and stole and borrowed the question

[Spud]

Beg and stole and borrowed the question

Beg and ... Etc your pardon?

[Spud]

Beg and stole and borrowed the question

If I understand you correctly, if you believe on the basis of evidence then it isn't begging the question to say that God is both just and merciful consistently throughout the Bible.

[Nearly Sane]

Beg and ... Etc your pardon?

Begging the question is a fallacy you used. That it was so overwhelmingly obvious, I empahasised it by linking it too The New Seekers Eurovision Song Contest entry Beg; Steal or Borrow. Just keep up, you lot!

[Nearly Sane]

If I understand you correctly, if you believe on the basis of evidence then it isn't begging the question to say that God is both just and merciful consistently throughout the Bible.

You cannot assert the conclusion as the conclusion as you did. You haven't presented any evidence and the presentation that you have done here is just another begging the question.

[SteveH]

   



About the only ones I can think of are Jeff Lucas and J.John.
Neither are anything like the typical Amwerican Televangelists (Thank God!), and both use a lot of humour in their work.
Lucas has written several books with Adrian Plass (some might have heard of his  brilliant "Sacred Diaries' serie, as well as more 'serious work) called "Seriously Funny'.
J.John is a CofE minister with a gift of communication; niether is a YEC.

Lucas and John are mild-mannered, reasonable people, nothing like televangelists.