shantonu Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Forget slavery then, take 1 Samuel 15:3, wherein God orders the killing of small children and babies. Wasn't that immoral? That falls into the God having attributes attached to Him. They said God did it, but did He really? Just like Satan moved David to number Israel in Chronicles, and it's not mentioned in Samuel. Why would God kill infants? The same God that supposedly had protected, followed Israel around in clouds, and tabernacle's, helped them against giants, destroyed Sodom, but first letting the justified escape. See my point. I do see your point. But that means that the Bible is not a trustworthy record of what God did or said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 I do see your point. But that means that the Bible is not a trustworthy record of what God did or said. Some people call it cherry picking. I read each book different. Moses wrote the first five. Samuel and some others supposedly wrote Samuel; as Ezra compiled Chronicles. I can say for me that it's not trustworthy as I said earlier; I see God as sovereign. Whether He is attributed wrong, or He was angry, or jealous. It's like this. I have heard people say God, as described in the OT is a vicious, blood thirsty, tyrant; yet if you look past that into the other attributes to God in the OT, he is praised by other writers in a sovereign, and Holy way. It's a matter of the writer, and the reader. God killed infants, by a writers attribute, and God sent manna down from heaven, by a writers attribute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The-Captain Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Moses wrote the first five. Samuel and some others supposedly wrote Samuel I know I'm just jumping in here, and I hate having my first contribution be a nit pick, but no they didn't. Though I like your point about reading it as coming from the writer's perspective rather than being part of a contiguous depiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 I know I'm just jumping in here, and I hate having my first contribution be a nit pick, but no they didn't. Though I like your point about reading it as coming from the writer's perspective rather than being part of a contiguous depiction. Yes they did ! :tongue: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 23, 2009 Author Share Posted February 23, 2009 Isaiah stated both God was tired of our sacrifices, and that He can't be explained. Yeah, why would God even demand or wish for sacrifices? Why does God want humans in Heaven? Is it only because we are morally free agents and keep on screwing up and needed some loop-hole salvation? Can't he just wrap it all up, and create a new being with free will and morally culpable and then put them in Heaven? I mean, what is the reason to God wanting or needing humans at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 If God does exist, God is only what God is, and nothing more, and nothing less. To give God a profile, is to make God smaller. To say God is Jesus, or God is YWHW, or God is this or that, or God demands this thing or that thing to be happy or pleased, is to make God into a being, a thing. Why? That is to say why must "god" be undefinable or beyond our ability to define? Why must "god" be so grand? So beyond comprehension? Is that not simply a by-product of how we define a "god?" And really an evolution of the definition? Anthropomorphic "gods" were quite small and quite easily defined but "gods" have evolved to the point were we have made them (it) not only the size of the known universe but the known universe itself, in some perverse twist of science what might lie beyond the known universe and all things that are simply conceivable on any/all levels. We have done this. No "gods" have done this. As "gods" have become knowable we have made sure to keep pushing them into the unknowable. Time and again. No "gods" have mandated this. Ever. All definitions and conceptions of "gods" are man-made. Without exception. To say a god is a thing, or to say a god is NOT a thing is to define a "god" to what we want a god to be. Until a "god" appears this will always be the case. Unless I missed the class that said a "god" cannot be an atom. Or a mouse. Or a brick. Or snot. Or a plant. Or a planet. Or a star. Or a galaxy. Or anything at all. It's a "god" after all and I'm not sure what the rules are pertaining to such things but I do know, for a fact, that across all cultures the rules have varied since day one which tells me I need to call them all into question until an actual "god" arrives and can lend a hand. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 23, 2009 Author Share Posted February 23, 2009 Hey Hans. Here's the left out story. Then God said.... Why did you make all these stupid laws that nobody would follow? Here I send Jesus, Him you will hear! I think we're just lab-rats. God is sending multiple, conflicting messages, and observe how crazy we become. Killing each other in the hopes of some eternal luxury life. Just silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 23, 2009 Author Share Posted February 23, 2009 Why? That is to say why must "god" be undefinable or beyond our ability to define? Why must "god" be so grand? So beyond comprehension? Is that not simply a by-product of how we define a "god?" And really an evolution of the definition? True. "God" is a word, and it has many definitions, so in a sense it's just going to be another definition of God. But if there is a God, who is outside all our dimensions, and exists outside our arrow of time, how can we know any attributes of him. To say God is eternal might be completely wrong. To say God is not eternal, could also be completely wrong. To say either or, is to make a statement that we somehow know whichever one God is, and how can we know, since we're not there? So whichever one we decide to use as a definition for God, is our human, fallible, finite being, way of defining God. Nothing else. But it's true, if I give the definition God is undefinable, I'm making a definition in a sense, but at least there are more support for that point than to argue any more specific attributes. Maybe the comparison with how fields are defined in a database. There is one atomic property called "Nullable." If a field is null, its value is unknown. It doesn't mean it doesn't have a value, it only means that a proper value wasn't provided. In other words, there is a difference between zero and null. Zero is a known value, but "null" apples in a box means that you haven't counted them yet. The properties of God can be said to be not knowable, as if we don't know what they are, in other words, our properties/values of God are: Null. To assign a value to a property, is to declare it known. And I'm strongly against that idea, since we can't even decide to agree if there is a God or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Hey Hans. Here's the left out story. Then God said.... Why did you make all these stupid laws that nobody would follow? Here I send Jesus, Him you will hear! I think we're just lab-rats. God is sending multiple, conflicting messages, and observe how crazy we become. Killing each other in the hopes of some eternal luxury life. Just silly. Hell, maybe the Gnostic are right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 23, 2009 Author Share Posted February 23, 2009 Hell, maybe the Gnostic are right. Imagine continuing living after death, and you meet St Peter (or whoever it is), and he ask you for Tag Number. You state that your name is Bob, but Peter insists on getting the designated tag number used in the experiment called Earth 2.0, in sector Milkyway, Cosmos. And which religion you followed, and when all the stats are recorded, he sends you to the Soul Destroyer for total, eternal, annihilation, because the experiment is now concluded, and he needs to go back and write a full report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Maybe the comparison with how fields are defined in a database. There is one atomic property called "Nullable." If a field is null, its value is unknown. It doesn't mean it doesn't have a value, it only means that a proper value wasn't provided. In other words, there is a difference between zero and null. Zero is a known value, but "null" apples in a box means that you haven't counted them yet. The properties of God can be said to be not knowable, as if we don't know what they are, in other words, our properties/values of God are: Null. To assign a value to a property, is to declare it known. And I'm strongly against that idea, since we can't even decide to agree if there is a God or not. Great. God is Null. Hopefully whoever programmed the DB followed spec or god is going to be in trouble if we ever have to migrate him to another platform. I'll have to check my MySQL tables for "god." Something is mucking things up (though I think it's something in PHP...I never thought to look for "god" in there but xians say I didn't look everywhere and they may have been right after all). mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 23, 2009 Author Share Posted February 23, 2009 Great. God is Null. Yup. Or maybe even a null pointer, like in Java/C++. Hopefully whoever programmed the DB followed spec or god is going to be in trouble if we ever have to migrate him to another platform. I'll have to check my MySQL tables for "god." Something is mucking things up (though I think it's something in PHP...I never thought to look for "god" in there but xians say I didn't look everywhere and they may have been right after all). Google is God now. Platform independent and all knowing. If you're running Linux, well, you got a bunch of daemons messing up your life. What did you expect? Solution: sudo kill -9 <evil PID> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefranden Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 But the God of the Bible, in particular the God of the Old Testament, seems to act in ways that are immoral and unjust, for example allowing slavery and prescribing rules for the treatment of slaves etc. Slavery is a broad term. I grew up in a predominantly African-American town. Slavery as most understand it today brings that ethnic group to mind first. What about servants for the rich? Was the cruel, forced slavery of then, the slavery we view regarding African-American slavery? Did these 'slaves' make wages, or were they forced? I don't think it was the same situation. No, slaves of Hebrews did not make wages. They could be beaten to death as long as they took a few days to die. They could be sold at will and be delivered to the next generation as inheritance. Although Hebrews could be slaves, they couldn't be held permanently unless they volunteered to do so. Slavery was racist in the bible. The fact that some slaves can be trusted servants and even content with their lot does not make slavery moral in any sense. Female slaves were subject to the sexual whims of their owners. You can't justify this, and your attempt to do so shows a bit of delusion about the so called just and merciful Yahweh. Yahweh is neither just or merciful. He killed David and Bathsheba's bastard with a terrible illness for the sins of its father. That was neither just or merciful. By their fruits you shall know them applies to the gods as well as to us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Yup. Or maybe even a null pointer, like in Java/C++. Isn't this baby jesus? Taking on the attributes of what he's pointing to? Oh, and I worship the Sun and run Solaris(sparc). mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 23, 2009 Author Share Posted February 23, 2009 Yup. Or maybe even a null pointer, like in Java/C++. Isn't this baby jesus? Taking on the attributes of what he's pointing to? Oh, and I worship the Sun and run Solaris(sparc). Niiiiiceee. I had one in the early 90's. And I loved it. Sometimes I feel I want one just because of the sentimental reasons. Basically you're a pagan then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Slavery is a broad term. I grew up in a predominantly African-American town. Slavery as most understand it today brings that ethnic group to mind first. What about servants for the rich? Was the cruel, forced slavery of then, the slavery we view regarding African-American slavery? Did these 'slaves' make wages, or were they forced? I don't think it was the same situation. If you were going to pay wages then why wouldn't you simply hire someone as opposed to getting a slave and paying them? Lower wages? You own the slave. Why pay a thing at that point? Paying a slave makes no sense. You're already giving them food and shelter. If they perform well you may even grant them their freedom (probably in your will..of course depending on the culture they won't be truly free because even freedmen had to do a certain amount of labor for their former master each year). I think you've bought into the propaganda that slavery really isn't slavery. The only difference is that there were different types of masters. A slave was always a slave. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shantonu Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 I do see your point. But that means that the Bible is not a trustworthy record of what God did or said. Some people call it cherry picking. I read each book different. Moses wrote the first five. Samuel and some others supposedly wrote Samuel; as Ezra compiled Chronicles. I can say for me that it's not trustworthy as I said earlier; I see God as sovereign. Whether He is attributed wrong, or He was angry, or jealous. It's like this. I have heard people say God, as described in the OT is a vicious, blood thirsty, tyrant; yet if you look past that into the other attributes to God in the OT, he is praised by other writers in a sovereign, and Holy way. It's a matter of the writer, and the reader. God killed infants, by a writers attribute, and God sent manna down from heaven, by a writers attribute. I'm all for cherry picking, as long as we are clear that's what we are doing. However, the frank admission of cherry picking leads to the conclusion that the Bible as a whole is errant. The parts we like, we keep. The parts that trouble us, we discard or say that they are the words of men. As good and reasonable method as that might be, with that method dies any possibility of "evangelical" Christianity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agnosticator Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 So justice is a creation of God, but it's also the tool by which we understand God. But on it's own terms, I think the Bible is a failure because God seems to act in ways that are unjust. I don't expect that God has to always act in ways that comport with human conceptions of justice, but can God's operations in our world so regularly defy the standards that He Himself created? Very true. I think the problem for me isn't that God creates his own laws and give them as dicta to us, but rather that we give him labels and definitions which are for the use of judging character. Saying "God is just" or "good" doesn't render any meaning when they really mean: "Whatever God does is 'just' or 'good'." It's like saying, whatever I find to eat, tastes good, because I say so. And then eat something terrible and even throw up, and saying that tasting terrible really means the same as tasting good. It becomes completely meaningless. If God does exist, God is only what God is, and nothing more, and nothing less. To give God a profile, is to make God smaller. To say God is Jesus, or God is YWHW, or God is this or that, or God demands this thing or that thing to be happy or pleased, is to make God into a being, a thing. So I find it quite silly how hard Christians and other religious people work to prove God by making him/her/it being such-and-such, because how can they know, and if it's true most of the time they end up in paradoxical statements. If God exists, then God can't be explained or described. It's better if they stick to the idea that God can only be experienced, and then leave the debate of trying to define him/her/it. I appreciate and agree with your thoughts from this post and post #5, Hans. This is a great and thoughtful thread!! I just hope LNC doesn't add his tired, repetitive thought-loops and ruin a good thing.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Imagine continuing living after death, and you meet St Peter (or whoever it is), and he ask you for Tag Number. You state that your name is Bob, but Peter insists on getting the designated tag number used in the experiment called Earth 2.0, in sector Milkyway, Cosmos. And which religion you followed, and when all the stats are recorded, he sends you to the Soul Destroyer for total, eternal, annihilation, because the experiment is now concluded, and he needs to go back and write a full report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 I mean, what is the reason to God wanting or needing humans at all? Caus' we are His children's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 You can't justify this, and your attempt to do so shows a bit of delusion about the so called just and merciful Yahweh. Yahweh is neither just or merciful. He killed David and Bathsheba's bastard with a terrible illness for the sins of its father. That was neither just or merciful. By their fruits you shall know them applies to the gods as well as to us. Chef You crazy. I stand corrected about the whole slavery topic, but I will ask; How am I delusional? I think its obvious that if God is the true God illustrated in the Bible; then He is bi-polar. Either God is bi-polar, or was wrote about incorrectly. I believe that God exists, so I would have to say the later. There is nothing I can really say to the rest of what you said. You have your opinion, I have mine. If you were going to pay wages then why wouldn't you simply hire someone as opposed to getting a slave and paying them? Lower wages? You own the slave. Why pay a thing at that point? Paying a slave makes no sense. You're already giving them food and shelter. If they perform well you may even grant them their freedom (probably in your will..of course depending on the culture they won't be truly free because even freedmen had to do a certain amount of labor for their former master each year). I think you've bought into the propaganda that slavery really isn't slavery. The only difference is that there were different types of masters. A slave was always a slave. mwc I was always under the impression that a slave then was just lower class, that couldn't make it. Basically, unemployed and sold themselves to the highest bidder for shelter, food, clothes, etc. .Just to survive. I agree that some masters then were cruel, and some weren't. Leviticus makes it sound that way as well. Thats why I said originally that I didn't think it was the same situation. Lev 25:39 39 And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant: (KJV) This talks about another Israelite, yet the process slavery then from what I always gathered was the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 I'm all for cherry picking, as long as we are clear that's what we are doing. However, the frank admission of cherry picking leads to the conclusion that the Bible as a whole is errant. The parts we like, we keep. The parts that trouble us, we discard or say that they are the words of men. As good and reasonable method as that might be, with that method dies any possibility of "evangelical" Christianity. Is that a bad thing? Try reading the Bible, take away the character descriptions of God, study what Jesus said, and for me, it comes across a little more sensible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shantonu Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 I'm all for cherry picking, as long as we are clear that's what we are doing. However, the frank admission of cherry picking leads to the conclusion that the Bible as a whole is errant. The parts we like, we keep. The parts that trouble us, we discard or say that they are the words of men. As good and reasonable method as that might be, with that method dies any possibility of "evangelical" Christianity. Is that a bad thing? Try reading the Bible, take away the character descriptions of God, study what Jesus said, and for me, it comes across a little more sensible. Not at all. I consider myself a 100% Christian and 100% atheist. See post #69 on "The Problem Of Mass Killing In The Bible" thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 I was always under the impression that a slave then was just lower class, that couldn't make it. Basically, unemployed and sold themselves to the highest bidder for shelter, food, clothes, etc. .Just to survive. I agree that some masters then were cruel, and some weren't. Leviticus makes it sound that way as well. Thats why I said originally that I didn't think it was the same situation. Lev 25:39 39 And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant: (KJV) This talks about another Israelite, yet the process slavery then from what I always gathered was the same. I took a look at that verse. The word for "brother" denotes a kinship. A relative but could be a countryman I suppose ( member of the same tribe by extension). The word for "bondservant" is a slave. It says don't make your kinsman a slave. The next verse says to keep him as a hired man until the Jubilee (which is essentially every 49/50 years and not always celebrated). So slaves exist by this very verse. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 24, 2009 Author Share Posted February 24, 2009 I mean, what is the reason to God wanting or needing humans at all? Caus' we are His children's So what's the difference between the angels and humans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts