The Specious Love Of God

[freeday]

And don't say that the 70,000 people weren't innocent - David himself admits they were innocent and he was guilty. See 2 Samuel 24:17. The jerk offers his innocent family up to be punished with him as a bonus. What a great king.

 

Incidentally, don't forget that this isn't the first time that Yahweh lets David off the hook for doing something bad - David murders Uriah and takes his wife, Bathsheba. Then Yahweh kills their innocent son years later as punishment for *David's* murder. Thus, the dead kid is slapped with capital punishment, David gets away with sin again. A sin that he never made an offering to atone for (check 2 Samuel 12:1 - 12:22).

 

Hey! In rereading the Uriah/Bathsheba story, it's worse than I thought. The reason given for the little kid's death is that David's wicked act "has given the enemies of the LORD great opportunity to despise and blaspheme Him, so your child will die." (2 Samuel 12:13) So no one seems to give a shit that Uriah was murdered, Yahweh's just pissed that David made him look bad. Nice!

 

So Freeday, how is this loving or just?

I think the problem with modern fundamentalists, is they are too far removed from the original cultural mindset to really adhere to the original believers views of God. If they simply accepted these texts as being a factual, literal representation of how the believers really in fact did believe, then shape their understandings of justice and truth today backwards into this desert people's mindset from 3000 years ago instead of trying to explain these notions of God in the light of today's notions of God, they wouldn't seem nearly so ridiculous and intellectually dishonest.

 

Instead of pulling our hair out at how silly their trying to make ancient ideas of God fit into our modern values is, they should just say this is what God really is like today too. Then we could just call them crazy for actually believing this primitive tribal mindset. Of course, the reason they make the excuses instead, is because they know it doesn't square with their own values of today's culture, yet don't want to admit the whole book is about man's ideas of God, rather than God's direct truth about himself to us.

 

That's the whole problem, believing the bible is God's word, versus believing it's man's word about their ideas of a God.

 

good point you have there, i always look at things as a whole, not look at individual incidences. i think the bible shows a progressive history of how our religion was formed. it may be God's exact word, it may be man's flawed interpritation of God's work. who knows. i definitely think there are some positive things that can be learned for the bible.

 

 

Freeday,

 

In Hermeneutic, the science and art of biblical interpretation, theologans are taught the fundamentals of interpreting a text

 

The passage or words must be studied in context.

 

The first context is the material that immediately precedes and follows the passage under consideration. "A text without a context is a pretext."

 

[Rev. E.P.] Barrows stated, "To interpret without regard to the context is to interpret at random; to interpret contrary to the context is to teach falsehood for truth" (Barrows, Companion to the Bible, 531). [barrows, a professor of theology at Oberlin Seminary, wrote in 1868.]

 

Do you agree with the above?

 

If you do, please practice it.

 

i agree with the above, thank you for pointing that out to me.

 

 

 

 

but have a strange relationship to say the least. as the discussion above, God can use satan, he can limit his powers as in Job. But even Satan recognizes his authority.

 

Yes, that's what the Jews and us, skeptics are saying

 

The character called "Satan" is merely one of God's tools which he uses to carry out various functions in his little drama on earth.

 

The concept of Devil is taken from the Pagan religion, amongst others such as demons and hell. It is not found ANYWHERE in the Hebrew Bible

 

great point that you bring up, satan was very much used as a tool by God in the OT. in describing satan as an advisary to God, can i use the NT to do so.

[Bluescreen]

mwc -

 

Freeday knows his argument all comes down to culteral relativism and that's not a good place to end up if you're him. That means god's rules and judgements change according to the culture. So, back in David's day he judged the "group" for the (mis)deeds of the leader. Today, he should judge the leader alone. The tap dancing on the issue shows he can't reconcile the problems with this.

 

But this raises all sorts of other problems. Taking slaves is out but homosexuality is (almost) in. God's rules in the bible did not change but the culture did. So we can either take up slavery and denounce gays, to be back on the side of god, or god can "go with the flow" and accept our ways and judge us accordingly. Of course the gay issue is just the obvious example but there are others that have been offered up. It has changed in the past and it will change again in the future.

 

God is simply a "mirror" that reflects our ideal self back on to ourselves. Is it any wonder it changes? This is why there is so much disparity between what god is in the written word and what god is in peoples minds.

 

Beautiful post, mwc. This is the crux of the problem in my mind, and a fatal problem at that. "God doesn't change," says the Bible, yet his behavior is utterly incomprehensible (and often reprehensible) when viewed from outside the culture of the ancient Hebrews. I don't buy freeday's "god treats people according to their culture" argument - I've heard it before, and it doesn't work. If he deviates from his own supposedly perfect, immutable standard of justice to adhere to a human culture's norms, then we have a problem - he's not acting with perfect justice. If god's concept of justice is perfectly in sync with that of the Hebrews from 3000 years ago, then we have another problem - he starts to look suspiciously like a product of the times, an archaeological relic. Either way, theologically the system's in trouble. This is one of the critical problems that I encountered and couldn't reconcile that punched a big hole in my own faith.

[mwc]

i am not tap dancing over the issue. i almost agree with you to a certian extent. i think that man interprets the bible to a certian extent to reflect thier own culture. but i think God may have incorparated this into his plan so that his word would be relavant to everyone for all generations. no two people will think alike.

But god is moral absolutes and we are now into relativism. This is a problem. You did not address me directly and went off onto a slight tangent with others by saying that we elected Bush and therefore we can be held accountable and so on. This is tap dancing around the problem. If Bush is the problem then Bush should be punished. Did you come right out and declare this? No, you did not. Likewise you did not say that the people should suffer for Bush's "sins" as in the story of David. Instead you opted for a "loophole." A "loophope" only afforded you by democratic process. David wasn't elected however. As king his people did not vote him in so any examples comparing the United States to a monarchy will not be entirely accurate.

 

So let's continue. We could argue that all the storms are the punishments by god for all of Bush's lies. Maybe god is offended? We can't say but perhaps some wise sage has informed Bush of this? Would this be a fair action on the part of god? To keep hitting us with disaster after disaster until Bush apologizes, not to the American people (and perhaps the world) for his lies, but simply to god? Who's truly being punished for the lies being told? We like to think that our leaders care for us but history shows that tyrants and cowards could really care less about those they profess to love. In the story of David god offers three punishments. Two of the three would harm the general populous and one would put David in harms way alone for a time. If he truly cared for his people above himself the choice is simple but he declares he doesn't wish to be judged by men (probably because of the evil things he has done to others) and takes the cowards path of making no choice. God decides to teach David a lesson by killing innocent people and David learns the lesson but at what cost? 70,000 innocent men. This is the point. David makes a sacrifice to god but is never punished. Those people are fodder just like the people in Job. Means to an end. What should have happened is they should have gotten their lives back. He's god he could have done it. David should have been punished all the more severely for his initial sin and this additional crap everyone had to go through. But since it was all so god could teach a lesson anyhow did it really need to happen anyway? Who knows? The good thing is...it never happened at all.

 

i always try to respond to your replies, you always offer a very valid point. i truely respect your opinion and most everyones on here. it is really bringing out the different view points of my beliefs.

You do. Thanks. But when things get a little tough it seems you get a little...let's say...selective. At least you're no Amy Marie.

 

mwc

[freeday]

i am not tap dancing over the issue. i almost agree with you to a certian extent. i think that man interprets the bible to a certian extent to reflect thier own culture. but i think God may have incorparated this into his plan so that his word would be relavant to everyone for all generations. no two people will think alike.

But god is moral absolutes and we are now into relativism. This is a problem. You did not address me directly and went off onto a slight tangent with others by saying that we elected Bush and therefore we can be held accountable and so on. This is tap dancing around the problem. If Bush is the problem then Bush should be punished. Did you come right out and declare this? No, you did not. Likewise you did not say that the people should suffer for Bush's "sins" as in the story of David. Instead you opted for a "loophole." A "loophope" only afforded you by democratic process. David wasn't elected however. As king his people did not vote him in so any examples comparing the United States to a monarchy will not be entirely accurate.

 

So let's continue. We could argue that all the storms are the punishments by god for all of Bush's lies. Maybe god is offended? We can't say but perhaps some wise sage has informed Bush of this? Would this be a fair action on the part of god? To keep hitting us with disaster after disaster until Bush apologizes, not to the American people (and perhaps the world) for his lies, but simply to god? Who's truly being punished for the lies being told? We like to think that our leaders care for us but history shows that tyrants and cowards could really care less about those they profess to love. In the story of David god offers three punishments. Two of the three would harm the general populous and one would put David in harms way alone for a time. If he truly cared for his people above himself the choice is simple but he declares he doesn't wish to be judged by men (probably because of the evil things he has done to others) and takes the cowards path of making no choice. God decides to teach David a lesson by killing innocent people and David learns the lesson but at what cost? 70,000 innocent men. This is the point. David makes a sacrifice to god but is never punished. Those people are fodder just like the people in Job. Means to an end. What should have happened is they should have gotten their lives back. He's god he could have done it. David should have been punished all the more severely for his initial sin and this additional crap everyone had to go through. But since it was all so god could teach a lesson anyhow did it really need to happen anyway? Who knows? The good thing is...it never happened at all.

 

i always try to respond to your replies, you always offer a very valid point. i truely respect your opinion and most everyones on here. it is really bringing out the different view points of my beliefs.

You do. Thanks. But when things get a little tough it seems you get a little...let's say...selective. At least you're no Amy Marie.

 

mwc

 

there are so many ifs ands and buts about the old testament stories. i see your point. his punishment in this day in age could be percieved as harsh or unruly.

 

all of the bible could be picked apart. honnestly i would look at the situation as if there was a coincidental plague that killed a bunch of people, david interpretted it as punishment from God. or the genocides, the people had the general feeling that God was on their side and due to culture they just massacred everyone and attributed it to God helping them. who knows.

 

but i think in reading the bible and looking at it as a whole. you see God creating the people and expecting them to worship because of the creation, people lose sight of God. God performes miracles to bring them back to him, still they fall away. God strikes a deap fear in them with his plagues, still people fall away. God sends prophets and predicts the future. still people fall away. so i think God treid to make it as easy as possible.

 

sends his son, all you have to do is have faith, request forgiveness and try to be a good person. I think there is a catch 22 in this though. he didn't make it too easy to have faith. you have to have a blind faith. there is no hardcore evidence to prove either way.

[Ouroboros]

sends his son, all you have to do is have faith, request forgiveness and try to be a good person. I think there is a catch 22 in this though. he didn't make it too easy to have faith. you have to have a blind faith. there is no hardcore evidence to prove either way.

Only problem from the Heavenly perspective, the unbelievers (may even have good reasons to be unbelievers) will be punished for eternity. A religion that proclaims eternal damnation for people that doubts God's existence because of lack of evidence of God, that is a bad religion.

[freeday]

sends his son, all you have to do is have faith, request forgiveness and try to be a good person. I think there is a catch 22 in this though. he didn't make it too easy to have faith. you have to have a blind faith. there is no hardcore evidence to prove either way.

Only problem from the Heavenly perspective, the unbelievers (may even have good reasons to be unbelievers) will be punished for eternity. A religion that proclaims eternal damnation for people that doubts God's existence because of lack of evidence of God, that is a bad religion.

 

 

there is a difference between doubt and rejection. i have my doubts every now and then. i read into the bible and visit christian sites, and i am reaffirmed. even John the baptist had his own doubts of the Christ. this is the man that baptised him. if he had doubts, wouldn't you think it is normal for us too.

[mwc]

there are so many ifs ands and buts about the old testament stories. i see your point. his punishment in this day in age could be percieved as harsh or unruly.

Well, that is the point now isn't it? God is "love." The ultimate representation of such. But when the actions of said god are "uneven" and can be misinterpreted then we have a bit of a problem. It shouldn't matter what the era is since we are talking about an unchanging representation of an ideal (in the case of this thread it's love but it's also justice and mercy and all the rest). A model that we should all base our own actions upon. If we were to all run around emulating the god of the OT we would have serious societal problems. He is a god of "do as I say and not as I do" when he should be a god of "follow my examples."

 

all of the bible could be picked apart. honnestly i would look at the situation as if there was a coincidental plague that killed a bunch of people, david interpretted it as punishment from God. or the genocides, the people had the general feeling that God was on their side and due to culture they just massacred everyone and attributed it to God helping them. who knows.

So it's just an allegory of some sort? I'll agree with that. Pretty much the entirety of David (if not all). Job too. Noah. The Exodus. Adam and Eve. Let's just say most of it before say...oh...around roughly 800BC give or take.

 

but i think in reading the bible and looking at it as a whole. you see God creating the people and expecting them to worship because of the creation, people lose sight of God. God performes miracles to bring them back to him, still they fall away. God strikes a deap fear in them with his plagues, still people fall away. God sends prophets and predicts the future. still people fall away. so i think God treid to make it as easy as possible.

But wait...this story of David is an allegory but the creation is not? Why is it literal? Because the story of David is morally difficult and the creation story isn't? But the creation story becomes morally difficult too and I can hammer that one home if you like. I really don't want to though. Others here have nice allegorical explanations for it that explain it well. Perhaps they'll share them?

 

However, look at where god speaks to Cain in Genesis 4:7 (repeated in three different translations to make sure it's understood):

Genesis 4:7 (KJV)

If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

 

Genesis 4:7 (RSV)

If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is couching at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it."

 

Genesis 4:7 (Bible in Basic English)

If you do well, will you not have honour? and if you do wrong, sin is waiting at the door, desiring to have you, but do not let it be your master.

This is the very first mention of sin in the bible. God tells Cain that he holds the power over sin. Not that Cain needs god to help him with sin or anything like that. The moral of that story is clear. That if Cain did good things then he would control sin. If he didn't then sin would control him. Plain and simple. This was the definition of sin given to Cain by god himself. Does this match your definition of sin? Does this match later versions of sin within the bible? No. People forget all about this verse. It's the actual words of god explaining what sin is and how you can overcome it on your own. By doing well. What is well? God doesn't say. He also doesn't say who will accept you. God? Man? Both? (The one translation says honour so things that are honourable are not sinful.) The point is that not sinning is doing well (and being acceptable or honorable).

 

So god didn't expect worship, "faith" or any of that nonsense to atone sin. Genesis 4:7 proves that. He gave Cain the secret and that was for us to do "well." We have the power to overcome sin. God tells Cain, and us, not to let us become our master. How? By doing what is acceptable. That keeps sin away. What is acceptable? That's undefined by god. So apparently that's up to what society deems to be "well." So the first law of society? Don't murder. Does Cain listen? Nope. So he's cast out of his society.

 

sends his son, all you have to do is have faith, request forgiveness and try to be a good person. I think there is a catch 22 in this though. he didn't make it too easy to have faith. you have to have a blind faith. there is no hardcore evidence to prove either way.

You think this is as easy as possible? I think you overlooked the verse I gave you above. It tells you 100% of everything that you need to overcome sin on your own. Totally. It came 100% from god the father to the third person ever to exist (according to the story). How much better can you get than that?

 

By your statement here you have to have faith, blind faith and then try to be good. Then you have a "catch-22." Well, a catch-22 is an impossible situation. You can't succeed in a catch-22. The other problem is this. There's not only hardcore evidence but there's enough evidence to show that jesus never existed. There's evidence to show that maybe he was invented. Maybe he was someone like Apollonius of Tyanus instead?

 

mwc

[Checkmate]

I cannot believe that you people let THIS little gem go unnoticed!!

................

you have to have a blind faith. there is no hardcore evidence to prove either way.

WHAT?!?!? Do mine eyes deceive me? Or did I just read freeday agreeing to something we've been saying to him all along?

 

Well, I'll be damned. Maybe freeday isn't as stupid and hopeless as I think he is.

 

Yes, your religious belief requires "blind faith". Close your eyes, plug your ears, "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain", bury your head in the sand, make excuses, deny the obvious and any other method to be intellectually dishonest. The ONLY way you can believe ANY of this unbelievable tripe is to have Blind Faith.

 

Gold Star for freeday. I am SO glad that we could assist you into coming to this conclusion.

 

Now...for the $64 question...Why do you STILL believe that "blind faith" is healthy for you and others? You confess that you engage in self-deception in order to squash your "doubts" (YOUR word, not mine). Can you now look us in the eye (metaphorically speaking) and tell us that your behavior isn't unhealthy? You've given yourself a spiritual lobotomy, and yet you insist that you've done yourself no harm?

 

Face facts. Your religious beliefs are circling the drain. You've conceded every argument to us. You admit that your religion is nothing but the subjective ramblings of men attempting to make sense of their world, using their "god" as their catalyst/shield. And finally, you confess that it requires "blind faith" to navigate and stumble your way around these obstacles. (Ergo: your assertion that "God is Love" is blindly accepted and believed.) And yet you still think you can appear "rational" to a watching world? You STILL "believe" that there is some "god" watching and smiling/frowning down from "heaven", prepared to reward/punish mankind, and you trick yourself into having "blind faith" in the dubious religion that spawned this "god"?

 

Dude. If you're STILL playing this crazy game, then GET HELP. Seriously. Only mental patients think this way.

[Ouroboros]

there is a difference between doubt and rejection. i have my doubts every now and then. i read into the bible and visit christian sites, and i am reaffirmed. even John the baptist had his own doubts of the Christ. this is the man that baptised him. if he had doubts, wouldn't you think it is normal for us too.

Some people might have good reasons to reject it.

 

For instance, I lost all my faith, and I tried to keep it, but I couldn't. I even prayed for strenghtened faith, but nothing happend. I wanted to believe, but the situation, experience, knowledge and emotions piled up to a point where all my faith was gone. Now I reject it out of lack of faith.

 

Then we have someone, that rejected Christianity because he only met bad teachers that couldn't explain the theology correct. Maybe one guy have doubts and questions and the answers makes him upset and furious and he rejects this "false" Christianity, and with it his faith. Who do you blame, when the teachers are false teachers? And the student rejects it because he see their falsehood, but he never get a chance to know any "true" teachings?

 

sends his son, all you have to do is have faith, request forgiveness and try to be a good person. I think there is a catch 22 in this though. he didn't make it too easy to have faith. you have to have a blind faith. there is no hardcore evidence to prove either way.

You don't make "faith" to happen. Faith is based on belief which is based on being convinced about something. You hear some "facts" or ideas, and you start believing them. When you start hearing arguments against those ideas, you start doubting. When you hear more arguments and facts against those ideas, and the questions starts to pile up, and no one can answer them, but only more questions come, then your doubts increase even further. The only way to reduce the doubt and increase the faith is to get those answers. But we wait in vain. Sometimes I get a good answer, but it is extremely rare. The more I dive into the subject of faith, the more I find arguments against it. I'm truly is a "truth seeker". I do what Jesus said, to search and look for something and you find it, keep on knocking and the door will be open. That is me. For several years now I've been trying to find the truth to religion and Christianity, but the more I look and search, the more I become an Atheist! If God existed, he would know my heart and my sincere wish to know the truth, why does he then give me thousands of facts, knowledge, ideas, thought, reasons and arguments against faith? Don't you think that I rather be a Christian in a country where the 70% majority is Christian? Don't you think I rather be a Christian when my whole family is Christian, and some of the fundamentalists? Freeday, I didn't choose to become Atheist. Lack of faith did it, and God did nothing.

[Gaura]

Skeptic, you state that the Devil is a Pagan invention, not to be found in the Bible. The only way I see this as having any grain of truth is in a historical context, since missionaries to pagan lands in the early days took the local god (initially Pan) and recast that god (who was initially not an evil creation) into the Devil so that the locals would start to think that Jesus is good and Pan is bad. While there are pagan pantheons with "trickster" gods like Loki, usually they are not all bad in the way the devil is.The Native trickster of Coyote is a good example... the Pomo even have a myth where it is Coyote and the Great spirit who save the Pomo during a drought. "Coyote and the Grasshoppers"

[Asuryan]

"PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT INTELLIGENT ITALIAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN! I AM THE GREAT AND POWERFUL GRINCH!!! FEAR ME AND PISS IN YOUR PANTS!!!!"

 

 

 

*sneaks again behind the curtain*

 

ah, all right. Well don't worry too much, your secret is safe with those christians, seeing as they can barely read! (and if they knew how to do it, you could just scare them in a corner again, and we'll toast to them weeping "wahh, they're so full of anger at god and jesus!" )

[SkepticOfBible]

great point that you bring up, satan was very much used as a tool by God in the OT. in describing satan as an advisary to God, can i use the NT to do so.

 

Sure.....if you allow me to use the book of Mormon to show that Jesus and Satan were brothers.

 

Whether or not you have realised it or not, what you have is contradiction between the Old Testament and New Testament, about the nature of God and Satan.

 

Here is an excellent article by an ex-minister who cites one of the possible reasons for the origins of Devil in Christianity. The information that I asked you is not present in the bible, but in the non-canonical books.

 

Things You've Never Heard in Church: A STUDY OF SATAN AND A HUMAN TRAGEDY

 

Skeptic, you state that the Devil is a Pagan invention, not to be found in the Bible.

I said the Devil being the adversary of God, is not found anywhere in the Old Testament. The God of the Old Testament himself declares that he creates evil. The NT is quite clear about the devil though, ironically more clear about Jesus and his nature to the God

 

The only way I see this as having any grain of truth is in a historical context, since missionaries to pagan lands in the early days took the local god (initially Pan) and recast that god (who was initially not an evil creation) into the Devil so that the locals would start to think that Jesus is good and Pan is bad.

You are missing the bigger historical context? Who were the target population of the Christianity - gentiles

 

They were used to the concepts of a Good God fighting off the evil god, so for them it wasn't difficult to adapt to christianity, just like many hindus do not find the concept of god being reincarnated as odd and many believe Hindus believe that Jesus was god.

 

As the above article suggest, the devil had evolved by the time the NT writers wrote their books(mainly because of the Jewish enslavement with the Babylonians).

[Checkmate]

Bump. Just talking to myself now, I suppose. That's OK. After four decades of this I'm used to it by now.

 

Here's a word from BISHOP Carlton Pearson on the idea of pleasing and loving an "evil God"...

"We all feel we have to jump through hoops to please this intolerant and difficult-to-please God," he said in an interview last year. "We think God is going to burn billions of people endlessly without any recourse. That sounds more like the devil than God."

http://www.washtimes.com/culture/20040420-104557-5370r.htm

 

So you see, "Christians", it's not just US who believe it's crazy to worship a god of evil. A god who tortures billions simply because we failed to dot all our "I's" and cross our "T's".

 

Hmm...so what does this say about those who condemn Bishop Pearson's Doctrine of Inclusionism as "heresy"? Seems as if they are getting their rocks off terrorizing people with this Hell doctrine, doesn't it?