Tyson Posted August 11, 2005 Share Posted August 11, 2005 So I responded to a Christian who asked me this question. " So if you don't believe in biblegod (as you call him) then what god do you believe in?" I responsed by stating that IF there is a god, he has not sent me the memo yet and if he is the one in the bible, talk about a VERY poor job." I then went on to tell her that none has shown up for my requested interviews (just another way of saying that prayer is nothing more than talking to yourself). So she is a little wise ass (master at slipping out of arguments) so she says, "Does this mean you're bi-...." and then she stops there trying to say that I am bi-polar. Now I could have gone a millions ways with this, but I happened to tell her that I was not, but she might want to check King Saul who suffered from some sought of schizophrenic, manic depressive order. I might have been a little off with the example, but what she said next opened up a whole new argument. She said: [saul] knew God...he thought he could make better decisions. Look where that got him. So being a former Christian who actually read and studied the Bible, I knew the story of Saul so I asked her: What were these 'better decisions' [name]? Here was her classic "this should end the argument because I'm going to draw the 'faith card' right now" answer: My signature gives you a glimpse into how I feel about God. I won't pretend to know all the answers because I don't but I do believe in Him and I do know that He sees what we cannot. Saul's disobedience was for selfish reasons. He kept the best for himself and then lied about the reason why he kept them. Whether you care for God's decision or not will not change anything. He's still God and forever will be God. For those of you who do not know the story, what she is purposely refusing to say or skillfully bypassing is the fact that Samuel...er, God, ordered Saul to go take revenge on the Amalekites by killing EVERYTHING and EVERYONE in their community this means down the animals and children. When Saul came back from the genocidal campaign, Samuel realized that Saul did not carry out the orders thororoughly because he spared the choiced animals. This upset Samuel...er, God and Samuel essentially washed his hands of Saul and began looking for someone more fanatical, but not before bringing the Amalekite king (whom Saul spared) before himself and hacking him to pieces "before the Lord" at Gilgal. Now the Amalekite king was no saint himself (if the biblical account is to be believed), but Saul's refusal to kill even the animals got him a death sentence and later we read in the account that the Lord SENT an evil spirit to torment Saul which was simply the ancient writer, clueless about medical conditions, explaining what appears to have been manic depression or some other mental disorder. If we go literal, then the fundie has NO choice but to agree that his god torments people with evil spirits because they piss him off and that evil spirts do NOT come from the Satan dude, but from the lord at least until he mysteriously turned the job over to the Satan guy in the New Testament and removed himself from all the evils he committed in the Old Testament to become a "good and loving God." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trashy Posted August 11, 2005 Share Posted August 11, 2005 You make it sound all so convoluted and twisted - but I swear, the last time I read those passages it half-way made sense! Damn, now I'm considering having a Bible-burning party....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted August 11, 2005 Share Posted August 11, 2005 Hell, biblegod should at least have been semi-satisfied with Saul in his dealing with the Amalkites. At least he slaughtered the little kids and kittens like he was supposed to. He should have at least got partial credit for being obedient. (We need an emoticon of a dude stirring the pot with an evil grin on his face) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyson Posted August 11, 2005 Author Share Posted August 11, 2005 Hell, biblegod should at least have been semi-satisfied with Saul in his dealing with the Amalkites. At least he slaughtered the little kids and kittens like he was supposed to. He should have at least got partial credit for being obedient. (We need an emoticon of a dude stirring the pot with an evil grin on his face) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Saul was a dude who got a real bum deal. Dude couldn't get anything right and his successor did all kinds of shit and was labeled "a man after god's own heart." Then again, with the butcherings he allegedly did in the name of his god to expand the kingdom, should we be surprised? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted August 11, 2005 Share Posted August 11, 2005 Poor Saul. He was messed up from the beginning. God was just looking for any little excuse to uncork Saul, cause the Israelites elected a king against God's advice. He was kinda like Cinderella and the wicked stepmother. Nothin he did was right. On the other hand, we got David the peeper (as you mentioned) and Saul of Tarsus the bonzai christian stoner, Jonah the runaway bride, and Samson the horndog - and these guys became pillars idolized by generations of christians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyson Posted August 11, 2005 Author Share Posted August 11, 2005 I hear ya Mythra and I went and started a new thread over on that site titled: The Tragedy of King Saul. Here's the opening post. Keep in mind how Christians love to use the "we're only human and God understands" line. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It has always been a part of my character to see things differently and dare to do so. The story of king Saul of the Old Testament is no different. The usual epitath I used to hear about Saul was that he disobeyed God and as a result fell into personal and military ruin. The conclusion was repeated here recently. As the story goes, Saul reluctantly came to power and what you realize about Saul over and over again is that he is human. He responds like a human to situations. He is constantly portrayed as a goof, one who just could not get it right with each move angering God. His first screw up was to offer a sacrifice he was not to offer, but consider the situation. It was customary in ancient times for a priest to offer a sacrifice to the gods (Israel being no different) before going into battle. In this case the Israelites were set to fight the Phillistines and Samuel the priest was to come to offer the necessary sacrifice in seven days - his own instructions to Saul. Well Samuel did not show up as promised and panic set in and the army began to desert Saul. Apparently Saul tried to regain the morale and took it upon himself to offer the sacrifices and no sooner than doing so, Samuel showed up and issued a stern judgment upon Saul for his rash decision. The judgment included Saul losing his kingdom for acting human. To many Christians, the lesson here is that one should obey God at ALL cost or that God was only testing Saul and he failed. Case closed. The "well we're only human" label does not come into play here. Saul's next botch was in not annhilating the entire Amalekite population as ordered by Samuel. This included women, children and animals. Saul spared the choiced animals (well his account was that the army did) and the Amalekite king which angered Samuel coupled with the fact that Saul claimed he did as he was told. Saul had failed to massacre an entire people in the name of revenge, the 'better decision.' Samuel in disgust hacked the Amalekite king to pieces and again pronounced judgment on Saul. From there Samuel is instructed to go and anoint a new king by the name of David, but like a person having a lover waiting the wings, this is done in secret as not to upset Saul. Saul is basically a sitting duck, a buffoon on the throne. A laughing stock, on eheld up for ridicule by generations of preachers to come. Next, when the great Goliath came calling, Saul sat in his tent and endured the insults being hurled at Israel and their god during the usual posturing between ancient armies, not being able to decide how to deal with this threat of the Phillistine champion. David, an unknown, shows up and steals his glory by defeating and killing the giant enemy and goes on to win the praises and favor of the people to the understandable chagrin of the king, this a man who once had the 'Spirit of the Lord' come upon him causing him to break into prophesying mode. Saul is then filled with jealousy watching his glory fall upon a boy when the triumphant army returned to town. Prior to the Goliath incident, we are told that the 'Spirit of the Lord departed Saul and an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him.' (I Samuel 16:14). In other words, the man became a tortured soul and the scriptures attribute this to none other than god. This same spirit pushed Saul to attempt to kill David in a jealous rage which appeared to just come over him out of the blue as god pushed the buttons from behind the scenes. From there Saul lived as a tortured mess for the greater part of his reign, realizing his people were not behind him, the lord was not behind him, his mentor (Samuel) was dead and another man was in the wings already anointed for his throne and nothing more than a weak king just living out his days. In the end he dies an inglorious death in a miltary defeat and goes down in biblical history as a failure and held up as an example (in contract to his sucessor) as a bumbling, weak, excuse ridden king. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSpooky Posted August 12, 2005 Share Posted August 12, 2005 Tee hee. "Slick Willies." ... *fap* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts