Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Accepted Inaccuracy


white_raven23

Recommended Posts

Dang Raven... folks are having a hell of a time keeping on topic...

 

Too bad since it is a fresh and new idea which is a key trait of yours and one of the reasons I'm a fan.

 

On topic:

 

First, I just skimmed through Exodus 19-20ish+ and see that god spoke to Moses (Israelites listened) with the 10 commandments and such.

 

Fast forward to Exodus 32 and they are building a golden calf.

From Today's New International Version:

32:7 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go down, because your people, whom you brought up out of Egypt, have become corrupt. 8 They have been quick to turn away from what I commanded them and have made themselves an idol cast in the shape of a calf. They have bowed down to it and sacrificed to it and have said, 'These are your gods, Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.'

 

Note they turned away from... "...what I commanded them..." - past tense and seems to refer to what was recorded in Exodus 20ish.

 

What did I miss?

 

Second, Aaron getting off easy is clearly arbitrary in inconsistant with any normal sense of fair play. A xtian's only defense is along the lines of (bla bla bla) "god's morality is superior to our morality" and "How can we presume to judge god". (bla bla bla)

 

Wikipedia has some interesting comments...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_calf

 

Mongo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Grandpa Harley

    14

  • white_raven23

    12

  • Abiyoyo

    8

  • R. S. Martin

    3

Note they turned away from... "...what I commanded them..." - past tense and seems to refer to what was recorded in Exodus 20ish.

 

What did I miss?

 

 

Exodus 24:3 - 4

 

3 When Moses went and told the people all the LORD's words and laws, they responded with one voice, "Everything the LORD has said we will do." 4 Moses then wrote down everything the LORD had said.

 

Chapter 24...the more I look at it, the more I wonder if it was a later insert of some kind by whoever wrote the calf fiasco. If it were all written together....it's just bad writing. You've got moses going into a tent and getting a bunch of rules. Rules that go on for 3 chapters. Then one teeny chapter where the people agree to the rules...them moses goes away....for more rules.

 

Why the sudden interruption of the mass of rules? It looks like chapter 24 is a CYA chapter, really. Get it in writing that the Israelites agreed to the rules, else god appears unfair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright, here's what you do Raven. Do your youtube bit, but do it in the manner of a sweet, loving story teller talking to children about Bible Stories. "And then, do you know what happened next?? God made their skin rank with vile infections. They screamed for hours, and hours of agony because they'd made God very, very unhappy with them!" Then of course the bald prophet curse is always a sweet tale to make children rightly fear God. "And the bear that God sent sunk his claws deeply into the back of the first naughty child, ripping it wide open as his little friends watched in horror. They knew they were next!!"

 

You see, sweet stories, from a sweet story teller.

 

Go for it WR. You'll have a fan for life! :HaHa:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chapter 24...the more I look at it, the more I wonder if it was a later insert of some kind by whoever wrote the calf fiasco. If it were all written together....it's just bad writing.

 

Yes... bad writing indeed but what else can you expect under the circumstances?

 

The first series of bible books produced were probably refined and edited freely for many years until acceptance of their legitamacy gained popularity. At some point though, the idea that they are from god then makes it harder and harder to edit them "at will". However, the limited number of scribes and the ability of crafty high priests would occasionally permit a heavy handed rewrite of a passage like the one you mention as people question a story.

 

After that, you can't make wholesale changes so if you want to introduce new concepts you must write a whole new book and declare it to be a continuation of the old ones. At that point, the scolars duke it out and then a heavy handed high priest will edit out the contradictions and publish new versions, punishing those found with "corrupt" texts.

 

And so the wheel of creation, edition, publication and erradication turns.

 

I have little doubt that it was easier for Jewish scolars to rewrite the bible, burn the originals and sell the rewrites to the Jews than it was for GWB to manufacture evidence that Sadam Hussein = Al Queda and sell it to America.

 

Hell, the story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultry about to be stoned does not appear in any original document but only in Latin versions and is generally not believed to be original.

 

Is there any ancient written history that is not replete with either exaggeration or fabrication?

 

Mongo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best thing to do is get a commentary that includes the higher criticism of Exodus (maybe the Anchor Bible)

 

this book suggests a different order for the events.

 

But IMHO none of this crap happened for real anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice.

 

Nice.

 

god - "Blessed are you who have killed the false god worshippers....your reward? Plague."

 

No wonder christians tend to stick to the story version.

 

Good topic! This was one of the mentally hardest reads of the Bible for me. Here is God (which many as me, think God-Christ-God Christ) basically giving authority to killing these 'sinners' and then saying, aahhh, wasn't enough. Give them a plague. I read and read this area of the Bible until I pulled my hair out. Then I would go back a little and read :grin:; then go forward a little and read :grin:; then end result was starting from the beginning to the end :phew:

 

Anyway, its still hard to accept the violence, destruction, chaos in the OT; in also trying to relate that God, as the Father of Christ. Sometimes, I feel like I can justify it, but rationally, thats like trying to rationalize the Veitnam war.

 

Sometimes, I have to not put it away, but rather say. I don't understand it, I cant rationalize it. I still believe God is, and Christ is; and maybe when i die; I might see the why. Maybe, it was wrote wrong; maybe they were cursing aaron, moses, God; maybe they hid the calf. That sorta thing did happen, when they took over a city and God told them not to take certain things; and later there was things in the camp that weren't suppose to be there. Same situation, God was 'angered'. Thats a whole different topic though. God's 'anger'.

 

God also said later after the plague thing, to Moses, these people were 'stiffnecked' people. Christ, in the topic of divorcement, said God permitted it to be so because of the hardness of their hearts. So. Though, like I said earlier; theres no human rationality toward the situation. God did give His 'reason' for His harshness.

 

Another thing I consider. Christ seemed angered in several sections; temple, disciples sleeping, Pharisees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God also said later after the plague thing, to Moses, these people were 'stiffnecked' people. Christ, in the topic of divorcement, said God permitted it to be so because of the hardness of their hearts. So. Though, like I said earlier; theres no human rationality toward the situation. God did give His 'reason' for His harshness.

 

Another thing I consider. Christ seemed angered in several sections; temple, disciples sleeping, Pharisees.

 

Okay. So what you're saying is basically you accept God's violent acts because you can't rationalize them or don't undertand them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice.

 

Nice.

 

god - "Blessed are you who have killed the false god worshippers....your reward? Plague."

 

No wonder christians tend to stick to the story version.

 

Good topic! This was one of the mentally hardest reads of the Bible for me. Here is God (which many as me, think God-Christ-God Christ) basically giving authority to killing these 'sinners' and then saying, aahhh, wasn't enough. Give them a plague. I read and read this area of the Bible until I pulled my hair out. Then I would go back a little and read :grin:; then go forward a little and read :grin:; then end result was starting from the beginning to the end :phew:

 

Anyway, its still hard to accept the violence, destruction, chaos in the OT; in also trying to relate that God, as the Father of Christ. Sometimes, I feel like I can justify it, but rationally, thats like trying to rationalize the Veitnam war.

 

Sometimes, I have to not put it away, but rather say. I don't understand it, I cant rationalize it. I still believe God is, and Christ is; and maybe when i die; I might see the why. Maybe, it was wrote wrong; maybe they were cursing aaron, moses, God; maybe they hid the calf. That sorta thing did happen, when they took over a city and God told them not to take certain things; and later there was things in the camp that weren't suppose to be there. Same situation, God was 'angered'. Thats a whole different topic though. God's 'anger'.

 

God also said later after the plague thing, to Moses, these people were 'stiffnecked' people. Christ, in the topic of divorcement, said God permitted it to be so because of the hardness of their hearts. So. Though, like I said earlier; theres no human rationality toward the situation. God did give His 'reason' for His harshness.

 

Another thing I consider. Christ seemed angered in several sections; temple, disciples sleeping, Pharisees.

 

Great... bullshit apologising from God-boy for liking his demon god...

 

Dose of perspective.... we live on a tiny planet, the orbits a pretty small sun, on one of the less crowded spiral arms of a singularly uninspired spiral galaxy, that is due for demolition in around the trillion year time frame (not long by universal time frames...),

 

Now, you're trying to tell me, with a straight face, like it's not just remotely possible, but likely, that the creator of the Universe would be bothered, nay, upset, that someone decided to worship him in the form of a Golden calf? And has human emotions like 'Anger', the sort of thing Buddhism regards as the behaviour of a retarded child? This from the Creator of the Universe? Are you mad, or just dumb? The scale is wrong... if there is an entity that accepts your personal worship, you're looking at a local phenomenon... nothing Cosmic about something that take that level of interest in a bunch of raggy arsed Bronze age savages... and apologising for your god's behaviour basically puts you on the 'raggy arsed bronze age savage' scale of Grandpa's Nutball Form Scale...

 

What do you hope to archive by being here among civilised folk, you grinning loon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes, I have to not put it away, but rather say. I don't understand it, I cant rationalize it. I still believe God is, and Christ is; and maybe when i die; I might see the why.

 

So. You look at blatant injustice in the bible, and instead of calling a pig a pig, decide the fault lies within your "flawed" human sense of fair play. You are going to wait until your icky humanness is shed, because it's obviously keeping you from understanding the word of god. You assume once you are pure "spirit" (with insufficient evidence that such an existence lies in the future) you will be in a god-like "objective" position?

 

Maybe, it was wrote wrong;

That would mean it's not the perfect word of god. And just half a moment ago, you said you hoped you'd be able to understand after you die (one motherfuck of a wager). You are trying to have your holy book and your fiction novel at the same time.

 

God also said later after the plague thing, to Moses, these people were 'stiffnecked' people. Christ, in the topic of divorcement, said God permitted it to be so because of the hardness of their hearts. So. Though, like I said earlier; theres no human rationality toward the situation. God did give His 'reason' for His harshness.

It's a poor explanation. God behaving like a petulant angry kid Moses has to placate. The explanation goes from poor to half-ass crappy when you remember the lengths of trouble god went to to get these people out of civilized Egypt out to the middle off ass-all nowhere...just to start turning his nose up at them.

 

Another thing I consider. Christ seemed angered in several sections; temple, disciples sleeping, Pharisees.

And fig trees that had the GALL to not be producing fruit out of season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God also said later after the plague thing, to Moses, these people were 'stiffnecked' people. Christ, in the topic of divorcement, said God permitted it to be so because of the hardness of their hearts. So. Though, like I said earlier; theres no human rationality toward the situation. God did give His 'reason' for His harshness.

 

Another thing I consider. Christ seemed angered in several sections; temple, disciples sleeping, Pharisees.

 

Okay. So what you're saying is basically you accept God's violent acts because you can't rationalize them or don't undertand them?

 

Eponymic,

 

If I didn't accept them, I wouldn't be a Christian. Unlike a fundamentalist, I look outside the box into other veiws, though its something thats in the Ot. Clear as day. Like I said though, its really beyond human rationalization. When I say rationalization, it implied the 'whys' of God. If God is omnipresent, how could us in a finite stage see, justify what He could in an infinte stage. Its not possible.

 

The book was written by men. The Nt said Jesus healed, raised the dead, etc. Any human being looking for God as the answer would obviously want to believe those things, and not believe God of the Ot killed thousands because of rage. Thats automatic if your any sort of a Christian and follow the Bible. Yet, the thing is that God, Christ both were said to know the hearts of men. We don't. Whether God is or not, thats a fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet, the thing is that God, Christ both were said to know the hearts of men. We don't. Whether God is or not, thats a fact.

Correction:

That's a misuse of the word "fact". You state an assumption or a belief, not a fact. I could say that my God (if I had one) knows the hearts of dogs and bunnies, but he doesn't know the hearts of men, and you couldn't prove me otherwise. So it's not fact, but only a statement of your opinion.

 

You could say that it's a fact that the Bible states that the Judeo-Christian God (if he exists) knows the hearts of men, and I assume that's what you really meant. In other words, the fact is that the Bible makes a claim, which is about the God and the hearts of men, but the claim itself isn't necessarily a fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Now, you're trying to tell me, with a straight face, like it's not just remotely possible, but likely, that the creator of the Universe would be bothered, nay, upset, that someone decided to worship him in the form of a Golden calf? And has human emotions like 'Anger', the sort of thing Buddhism regards as the behaviour of a retarded child? This from the Creator of the Universe? Are you mad, or just dumb?

 

Calm down Grandpa :nono: If the 'god' that was a 'god' was just loving, caring, gentle, etc; wouldnt that make Him Santa Claus? Seriously, fact. We are people that do right and wrong, God or not. So. What happens when someone does wrong? God says, Ok son I love you, you are forgiven. No. The Christian God claims to be a just God, and if He were to judge it would be just. Now, the problem is that you disagree with the judgment portrayed in this scripture, in which I agreed and said is understandable. Who wouldn't think that. I expressed that in my post, also in laying out that though I can't 'rationalize' this event, We as people are reading a book written by people and for anyone to base any opinion of that book in a one way fashion would be likely to the Fundamentalist view. Are you a Fundamentalist?

 

 

What do you hope to archive by being here among civilised folk, you grinning loon?

 

:grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes, I have to not put it away, but rather say. I don't understand it, I cant rationalize it. I still believe God is, and Christ is; and maybe when i die; I might see the why. Maybe, it was wrote wrong; maybe they were cursing aaron, moses, God; maybe they hid the calf. That sorta thing did happen, when they took over a city and God told them not to take certain things; and later there was things in the camp that weren't suppose to be there. Same situation, God was 'angered'. Thats a whole different topic though. God's 'anger'.

 

God also said later after the plague thing, to Moses, these people were 'stiffnecked' people. Christ, in the topic of divorcement, said God permitted it to be so because of the hardness of their hearts. So. Though, like I said earlier; theres no human rationality toward the situation. God did give His 'reason' for His harshness.

 

Another thing I consider. Christ seemed angered in several sections; temple, disciples sleeping, Pharisees.

You make no sense whatsoever. First, you say that God's ways are too mysterious for us to understand, but then you turn around and explain God's ways to us and tell us what God's going to do when we die as if you're somehow in charge of what God does and know what he thinks when you just said his ways were mysterious. If that isn't hypocrisy, please tell me what is. Your own bible itself says that God is not the author of confusion, so why would God purposely make his bible too confusing for us to understand? Isn't that a clear contradiction? If understanding it when we die justifies God's tyranny, then is Adolf Hitler's tyranny justified simply because of the off-chance that we might understand it when you die? If God told you to kill us, would you do it on the off-chance that you might understand it when you die? Or if we claimed that God told us to kill you, would you let us do so based on a second-hand account that said Goddidit and on the off-chance that you might understand why God let something happen to you when you died? Are al-qaida terrorist attacks justified because they believed their God would give them 92 virgins when they died if they committed mass genocide in his name on the off-chance that we MIGHT understand it when we die? Why is the Jewish people's terrorism justified but not Islam's terrorism? Because that's exactly what your God is, a terrorist.

 

And your made-up crap story about what might have happened in the OT is utter bullshit. Do you think you're somehow a better interpreter of God's mysterious ways than the biblical authors were that you know what "really" happened when they didn't write it down? If you do, why do you bother following the bible then since you obviously think you're superior to what the bible says? Why don't you just make up your own "holy" book since you think you know everything about God better than the biblical authors knew? Again, according to the bible, God is not the author of confusion. If God exists and he really cares if we worship him and he really isn't the author of confusion, then why didn't God inspire the biblical authors to include such an important story in the scriptures if that's what really happened with the golden calf? Either way, even if your bullshit apologetics was true, I fail to see how merely stealing something deserves not only capital punishment but torture from plagues of all things. What happened to giving appropriate punishments for the level of how extreme the crime was and all that? But it's not like God had any problems with demanding the Hebrew people to steal and rape virgins, yet suddenly stealing a mere calf deserves torture? What kind of planet do you live on YoYo? Because it's clearly not Earth and it's clearly not in reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes, I have to not put it away, but rather say. I don't understand it, I cant rationalize it. I still believe God is, and Christ is; and maybe when i die; I might see the why.

 

So. You look at blatant injustice in the bible, and instead of calling a pig a pig, decide the fault lies within your "flawed" human sense of fair play. You are going to wait until your icky humanness is shed, because it's obviously keeping you from understanding the word of god. You assume once you are pure "spirit" (with insufficient evidence that such an existence lies in the future) you will be in a god-like "objective" position?

 

If God is God , then who am I to question what He does. And yes, when my 'icky' humanness is shed then I will be 'as the angels'. Thats the common conception anyhow. :thanks:

 

Maybe, it was wrote wrong;

 

That would mean it's not the perfect word of god. And just half a moment ago, you said you hoped you'd be able to understand after you die (one motherfuck of a wager). You are trying to have your holy book and your fiction novel at the same time.

 

Yes, understand. Why did God let this happen? Why did God not let this happen? Who really wrote the book, Did it really happen? Or maybe I wont even have to ask, maybe the knowledge will just come. Maybe, they have a 'sitdown' when someone crosses over :grin: I hope Michael is my 'sitdown' guy. He's the man :woohoo:

 

God also said later after the plague thing, to Moses, these people were 'stiffnecked' people. Christ, in the topic of divorcement, said God permitted it to be so because of the hardness of their hearts. So. Though, like I said earlier; theres no human rationality toward the situation. God did give His 'reason' for His harshness.

 

It's a poor explanation. God behaving like a petulant angry kid Moses has to placate. The explanation goes from poor to half-ass crappy when you remember the lengths of trouble god went to to get these people out of civilized Egypt out to the middle off ass-all nowhere...just to start turning his nose up at them.

 

Thats what I mean WR, maybe we just don't know. God or not, to claim this is the 'way' it happened is no better than fundamental thinking. The box may be bigger than it looks.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet, the thing is that God, Christ both were said to know the hearts of men. We don't. Whether God is or not, thats a fact.

Correction:

That's a misuse of the word "fact". You state an assumption or a belief, not a fact. I could say that my God (if I had one) knows the hearts of dogs and bunnies, but he doesn't know the hearts of men, and you couldn't prove me otherwise. So it's not fact, but only a statement of your opinion.

 

You could say that it's a fact that the Bible states that the Judeo-Christian God (if he exists) knows the hearts of men, and I assume that's what you really meant. In other words, the fact is that the Bible makes a claim, which is about the God and the hearts of men, but the claim itself isn't necessarily a fact.

 

Hans,

Maybe that came out wrong. Fact as in 'we' don't know the hearts, intent, direction, deep thoughts of man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe that came out wrong. Fact as in 'we' don't know the hearts, intent, direction, deep thoughts of man.

Fair enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes, I have to not put it away, but rather say. I don't understand it, I cant rationalize it. I still believe God is, and Christ is; and maybe when i die; I might see the why. Maybe, it was wrote wrong; maybe they were cursing aaron, moses, God; maybe they hid the calf. That sorta thing did happen, when they took over a city and God told them not to take certain things; and later there was things in the camp that weren't suppose to be there. Same situation, God was 'angered'. Thats a whole different topic though. God's 'anger'.

 

God also said later after the plague thing, to Moses, these people were 'stiffnecked' people. Christ, in the topic of divorcement, said God permitted it to be so because of the hardness of their hearts. So. Though, like I said earlier; theres no human rationality toward the situation. God did give His 'reason' for His harshness.

 

Another thing I consider. Christ seemed angered in several sections; temple, disciples sleeping, Pharisees.

You make no sense whatsoever. First, you say that God's ways are too mysterious for us to understand, but then you turn around and explain God's ways to us and tell us what God's going to do when we die as if you're somehow in charge of what God does and know what he thinks when you just said his ways were mysterious. If that isn't hypocrisy, please tell me what is. Your own bible itself says that God is not the author of confusion, so why would God purposely make his bible too confusing for us to understand? Isn't that a clear contradiction? If understanding it when we die justifies God's tyranny, then is Adolf Hitler's tyranny justified simply because of the off-chance that we might understand it when you die? If God told you to kill us, would you do it on the off-chance that you might understand it when you die? Or if we claimed that God told us to kill you, would you let us do so based on a second-hand account that said Goddidit and on the off-chance that you might understand why God let something happen to you when you died? Are al-qaida terrorist attacks justified because they believed their God would give them 92 virgins when they died if they committed mass genocide in his name on the off-chance that we MIGHT understand it when we die? Why is the Jewish people's terrorism justified but not Islam's terrorism? Because that's exactly what your God is, a terrorist.

 

And your made-up crap story about what might have happened in the OT is utter bullshit. Do you think you're somehow a better interpreter of God's mysterious ways than the biblical authors were that you know what "really" happened when they didn't write it down? If you do, why do you bother following the bible then since you obviously think you're superior to what the bible says? Why don't you just make up your own "holy" book since you think you know everything about God better than the biblical authors knew? Again, according to the bible, God is not the author of confusion. If God exists and he really cares if we worship him and he really isn't the author of confusion, then why didn't God inspire the biblical authors to include such an important story in the scriptures if that's what really happened with the golden calf? Either way, even if your bullshit apologetics was true, I fail to see how merely stealing something deserves not only capital punishment but torture from plagues of all things. What happened to giving appropriate punishments for the level of how extreme the crime was and all that? But it's not like God had any problems with demanding the Hebrew people to steal and rape virgins, yet suddenly stealing a mere calf deserves torture? What kind of planet do you live on YoYo? Because it's clearly not Earth and it's clearly not in reality.

 

Neon Genesis,

 

I understand your thoughts, believe me I do. Don't you think I've asked myself all those questions before. I am simply implying that if God is omnipresent, potent, etc. Then He is what we are not. As far as 'my interpretations', I would have to say that I try to understand what I can, and rationalize what I can; but that doesn't necessarily mean that I claim to know more or less than the original authors, God, prophets, disciples. I am just me trying to make sense of something written in the fashion it was written.

 

You certainly do have a point about the author of confusion. Again, Do you understand that I have asked myself these questions many times, and spend times in thought and frustration on a personal level. I tend to lean toward Jesus's words more than Paul's. Jesus said He was a division for many. So, thats confusion right there. If you weigh Paul's words to the same level as Jesus's words.

 

In which, comes to the point in direction where a fundamentalist, literal Christian is wrong. The Bible can not be read word for word, and your comment comes to a surprise to me. Were you a fundamentalist Christian prior? I'm not trying to pry, I'm just curious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If God is God , then who am I to question what He does.

 

You are a sentient being. You have every right to question the right another sentient being has to hold authority over you.

 

See this is why I don't like christians. They don't hold god to the same high standards they do each other. People must strive for perfection. People must be spiritually white as snow....

 

But the god they worship can be dirty, bloody-minded, selfish, hateful, indifferent, and impassive....god can do no wrong. He's the authority that is above his own Law.

 

It's utter bullshit, but you YoYo....You see this inequity as perfectly justified. You have no problem being the "filthy" human who must reach for the perfection of a being that listens to pre-pubescent little girls being raped and sodomized by their fathers (something that happens somewhere in the world probably every five minutes), and does nothing.

 

Congrats. You have SO much to live up to. With a role model like that, who even needs Hitler to be worst of the worst?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neon Genesis,

 

I understand your thoughts, believe me I do. Don't you think I've asked myself all those questions before. I am simply implying that if God is omnipresent, potent, etc. Then He is what we are not.

And yet you then turn around and try to explain God's ways to us. If you really think God's ways are so mysterious that he's above ours, then why are you trying to explain God's ways to us? Isn't that hypocritical of you?

 

As far as 'my interpretations', I would have to say that I try to understand what I can, and rationalize what I can; but that doesn't necessarily mean that I claim to know more or less than the original authors, God, prophets, disciples. I am just me trying to make sense of something written in the fashion it was written.
Why is mass genocide and torture ever rationalized? Don't you realize that you are rationalizing mass genocide? And again, if God exists and he really cares that we worship him, why didn't he make such an important message clearer for us to understand, so that it would be impossible for anyone to misinterpret God's commands? If the bible can't make itself clear as to what it means, what makes you think non-believers can understand it to believe in it? Since it's apparent that no one can understand what God wants us to do, it's apparent to me that either 1) Yahweh does not care if we believe in him, therefore Yahweh is not all-loving, 2)Yahweh doesn't know how to make himself clearer, therefore he is neither all-powerful or all-knowing, or 3) Yahweh does not exist.

 

You certainly do have a point about the author of confusion. Again, Do you understand that I have asked myself these questions many times, and spend times in thought and frustration on a personal level. I tend to lean toward Jesus's words more than Paul's. Jesus said He was a division for many. So, thats confusion right there. If you weigh Paul's words to the same level as Jesus's words.
Expect that even Jesus himself said that division and confusion will destroy his followers. According to Mark 3:23-27, Jesus says,

 

23 So He called them to Himself and said to them in parables: “How can Satan cast out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 And if a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26 And if Satan has risen up against himself, and is divided, he cannot stand, but has an end. 27 No one can enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man. And then he will plunder his house.
Here Jesus is commanding his followers to be united in their beliefs or they cannot stand otherwise. You say that Jesus' words are greater than Paul's and that Jesus said that he came to be a division, but here Jesus is commanding his followers to be united. So, since Jesus' words are the greatest, which Jesus are we supposed to follow? Or do we simply cherry pick whatever is appealing to us and ignore whatever is inconvenient because it's obvious that whatever is inconvenient for us to accept isn't what the biblical authors really meant. Isn't it funny how the only time Christians claim that something isn't the way the biblical authors intended it to be is when it's something inconvenient for them to accept?

 

In which, comes to the point in direction where a fundamentalist, literal Christian is wrong. The Bible can not be read word for word, and your comment comes to a surprise to me. Were you a fundamentalist Christian prior? I'm not trying to pry, I'm just curious.
But if you have to discard 90% of the bible that you don't like as being metaphorical or whatever rather than literal and only accept 10% as the word of God, then why bother with the bible at all? Why not simply convert to some other religion that's more convenient that contains those same 10% teachings that you like? You might as well become a deist or something if you get to the point where the vast majority of the bible is simply discarded because your moral ethics clearly tells you that the bible is full of shit. It just seems pointless to me to continue with something you know is morally wrong for what little of it you actually like when there are other just as valid options out there that contain that same 10% of the bible's teachings that you do like. And yes, I used to be a fundie xtian, but I fail to see what that has to do with anything. Though I can tell you from personal experience that fundies cherry pick what's convenient for them and discard what isn't as merely metaphorical too, such as with the book of Revelation, and will explain away any contradictions as "that's not what the biblical authors really meant", an awful lot like what you're doing now, oddly enough. Besides, how do you know who's wrong and who isn't? Do you somehow have proof that the way you interpret the scriptures is the only correct one? What if you die and find out that the fundies were right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Now, you're trying to tell me, with a straight face, like it's not just remotely possible, but likely, that the creator of the Universe would be bothered, nay, upset, that someone decided to worship him in the form of a Golden calf? And has human emotions like 'Anger', the sort of thing Buddhism regards as the behaviour of a retarded child? This from the Creator of the Universe? Are you mad, or just dumb?

 

Calm down Grandpa :nono: If the 'god' that was a 'god' was just loving, caring, gentle, etc; wouldnt that make Him Santa Claus? Seriously, fact. We are people that do right and wrong, God or not. So. What happens when someone does wrong? God says, Ok son I love you, you are forgiven. No. The Christian God claims to be a just God, and if He were to judge it would be just. Now, the problem is that you disagree with the judgment portrayed in this scripture, in which I agreed and said is understandable. Who wouldn't think that. I expressed that in my post, also in laying out that though I can't 'rationalize' this event, We as people are reading a book written by people and for anyone to base any opinion of that book in a one way fashion would be likely to the Fundamentalist view. Are you a Fundamentalist?

 

 

What do you hope to archive by being here among civilised folk, you grinning loon?

 

:grin:

Few points, shithead

 

1) Do not tell me what to do, arse hole

2) Don't assume I have to get mad to be nasty... there's something very Zen about my insults it's like stopping a razor...

3) I don't care the rights or wrongs of what was done, I'm pointing up that the very premise of an involved creator of universe God is insane, given the scale... seems you can't read

4) So you're here to troll... good I'll treat you as such...

 

Unless you have a reason for hanging round since 06.... YOU'RE A FUCKING TROLL... what part of Ex-Christian is beyond your tiny, pointed head to wrap itself around? I can only assume you're here to save the fallen... you unmitigated, arrogant, apologist, cocksucking pile of rotting herring guts... I'd posit it is you presenting one reading of the book, since my reading is it's bullshit fiction and as spiritual as 'Justine' by the Marquis De Sade...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW... the above is an Ad Hom... I admit it's an ad hom... they trolling loon deserves no better than ad hom... he's made no good point, he knows he's made no good point... the twat...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In which, comes to the point in direction where a fundamentalist, literal Christian is wrong. The Bible can not be read word for word, and your comment comes to a surprise to me. Were you a fundamentalist Christian prior? I'm not trying to pry, I'm just curious.

 

Great, someone who knows 'THE TRUTH' ...

 

Why are you here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If God is God , then who am I to question what He does.

 

You are a sentient being. You have every right to question the right another sentient being has to hold authority over you.

 

See this is why I don't like christians. They don't hold god to the same high standards they do each other. People must strive for perfection. People must be spiritually white as snow....

 

But the god they worship can be dirty, bloody-minded, selfish, hateful, indifferent, and impassive....god can do no wrong. He's the authority that is above his own Law.

 

It's utter bullshit, but you YoYo....You see this inequity as perfectly justified. You have no problem being the "filthy" human who must reach for the perfection of a being that listens to pre-pubescent little girls being raped and sodomized by their fathers (something that happens somewhere in the world probably every five minutes), and does nothing.

 

Congrats. You have SO much to live up to. With a role model like that, who even needs Hitler to be worst of the worst?

 

I agree, so long as god's actions affect us we have every right to judge them. Either god is concerned for our well being or he is not, it can't be both. I challenge you (yoyo) to present a rational argument that shows that commission of genocide of human beings and concern for the well being of the same are not mutually exclusive ( I don't see how you possibly can) or admit that your god's primary concern is NOT our well being. Which would beg the question "what IS his primary concern"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Yo-yo's contention is that if you rape and sodomise your daughter with a pure heart then it's cool with God...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah...

So long as you get drunk first, and make sure she gets pregnant. Then it's perfectly alright.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.