dB-Paradox Posted February 24, 2010 Share Posted February 24, 2010 Jesus is God. Jesus is the same yesterday and today and forever. God, therefore is the same yesterday and today and forever. God commands the death of innocent children. (1 Samuel 15:3) Jesus said to let the children come to him, for the kingdom of God belongs to them. (Matthew 19:14) Jesus and God are not the same. Jesus is therefore not God Christianity is wrong. The end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vixentrox Posted February 24, 2010 Share Posted February 24, 2010 Or they are the same and Jesus has no problem with the death of some children. I often say that the god of the old testament and Jesus are the same. The butchering beast of the OT is Jesus. Jesus is NOT loving. He's a murdering and vengeful prick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dB-Paradox Posted February 24, 2010 Author Share Posted February 24, 2010 If Jesus hated anyone it was those in a higher position than him, or anyone who wouldn't listen to him while he was talking. I see Jesus as a man who hated authority and resisted it as much as he could. I see him as a radical person, but loving toward the same groups of people the god of the OT commanded be killed. So unless love and being killed can be seen as the same thing, I see God and Jesus as two different personalities. ***EDIT** Another example is how OT god had no tolerance for other nations outside the Israelites, but Jesus shows compassion to "outsiders" and other such "sinners". OT god would hear NOTHING of the sort! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagnarus Posted February 24, 2010 Share Posted February 24, 2010 You've argued that your particular interpretation of the Bible, is inconsistent, not that all possible interpretations are inconsistent, nor that your interpretation is the only possible interpretation. In short, I'm unimpressed, and I don't see why any currently professing Christian should be impressed by your argument, other than the fact that you brought up some of the atrocities of the bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qadeshet Posted February 24, 2010 Share Posted February 24, 2010 Christians have no trouble believing that Yahweh destroyed all life in the Great Flood, except for those on the Ark. Why should a few extra children bother them? Christians ignore any part of the Bible they don't like. What kind of a father would sentence billions of his children to suffer eternity in Hell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dB-Paradox Posted February 24, 2010 Author Share Posted February 24, 2010 Very true, qad. Good point. And you are right, dag...no currently professing Christian should be impressed by my argument. But then no currently professing Christian should be impressed by any argument, no matter how logical. I simply saw Jesus as more forgiving as his alleged OT counterpart. But you are right...it is only my understanding and interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted February 24, 2010 Share Posted February 24, 2010 God commands the death of innocent children. (1 Samuel 15:3) This is a tough tiddle of the Bible to claim God is omnibenevolent. I have heard people say that the Amalekites where horrible, immoral people; but, then again, the muslims could say the same about polytheist Christians and decide to go try and kill them all, which, they have tried to do. That just leaves it as a blank image for me, not monstrous, just kind of open for further explaining. One could say the Hebrews just gave God the recognition of 'the order'; and we do know that the writers didn't exactly collaborate perfectly all the time like in Kings and Chronicles, so maybe it was miswrote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefranden Posted February 24, 2010 Share Posted February 24, 2010 God commands the death of innocent children. (1 Samuel 15:3) This is a tough tiddle of the Bible to claim God is omnibenevolent. I have heard people say that the Amalekites where horrible, immoral people; but, then again, the muslims could say the same about polytheist Christians and decide to go try and kill them all, which, they have tried to do. That just leaves it as a blank image for me, not monstrous, just kind of open for further explaining. One could say the Hebrews just gave God the recognition of 'the order'; and we do know that the writers didn't exactly collaborate perfectly all the time like in Kings and Chronicles, so maybe it was miswrote. It was all miswrote. You just think some bits weren't miswrote, and that you can tell the good bits from the bad. Since you have this power, I still don't understand why you don't just rewrite it so that the miswrote bits get fixed. Then, say in 4 or 5 hundred years there could be a gospel according to YoYo sitting on the altar of churches around the world. Why do you think that God gave you this power if not to fix the church with the truth? As it is written, "from him whom much has been given, much is expected." I think you should step up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babylonian Dream Posted February 24, 2010 Share Posted February 24, 2010 Christians have no trouble believing that Yahweh destroyed all life in the Great Flood, except for those on the Ark. Why should a few extra children bother them? Christians ignore any part of the Bible they don't like. What kind of a father would sentence billions of his children to suffer eternity in Hell? Religious extremists, but that just speaks for itself, they're just doing as their lard told them to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted February 24, 2010 Share Posted February 24, 2010 That just leaves it as a blank image for me, not monstrous, just kind of open for further explaining. Perhaps it's time for you to really "fill in the blanks." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted February 24, 2010 Share Posted February 24, 2010 God commands the death of innocent children. (1 Samuel 15:3) This is a tough tiddle of the Bible to claim God is omnibenevolent. I have heard people say that the Amalekites where horrible, immoral people; but, then again, the muslims could say the same about polytheist Christians and decide to go try and kill them all, which, they have tried to do. That just leaves it as a blank image for me, not monstrous, just kind of open for further explaining. One could say the Hebrews just gave God the recognition of 'the order'; and we do know that the writers didn't exactly collaborate perfectly all the time like in Kings and Chronicles, so maybe it was miswrote. It was all miswrote. You just think some bits weren't miswrote, and that you can tell the good bits from the bad. Since you have this power, I still don't understand why you don't just rewrite it so that the miswrote bits get fixed. Then, say in 4 or 5 hundred years there could be a gospel according to YoYo sitting on the altar of churches around the world. Why do you think that God gave you this power if not to fix the church with the truth? As it is written, "from him whom much has been given, much is expected." I think you should step up. I Chronicles 21:1 Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel. 2 Samuel 24 Again the anger of the LORD was aroused against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, “Go, number Israel and Judah. The first time I ever read the Bible, I noticed this inconsistency in Scripture. Who did it? God or Satan. I will say the NIV uses lower case for 'he' in 2 Sam. But, this is the point, here is not an example, not a theory, but proof that the scriptures are not infallible. So, writer error could be a feasible thought into Christian theology. So, what if the writer claimed God lead Samuel to order the slaying of those innocent childrens, and really, it was Satan. With my example above,wouldn't that be a Biblical consideration? Of course, we could also say by that, possibly, that Satan followed Moses around and gave them all those commandments, or Elijah toasted all those prophets, or Satan made them bears come and maul them kids. So, in essence, Christianity would change forever, if not become ruined, or tainted in some degree. This Chef, is why it is the skeptics favorite area of criticism, and most effective; and also, a fundy's nightmare question. It works out for good conversation, that is, until it gets real for people hurting over religion or whatnot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted February 24, 2010 Share Posted February 24, 2010 So, what if the writer claimed God lead Samuel to order the slaying of those innocent childrens, and really, it was Satan. With my example above,wouldn't that be a Biblical consideration? Of course, we could also say by that, possibly, that Satan followed Moses around and gave them all those commandments, or Elijah toasted all those prophets, or Satan made them bears come and maul them kids. So, in essence, Christianity would change forever, if not become ruined, or tainted in some degree. This Chef, is why it is the skeptics favorite area of criticism, and most effective; and also, a fundy's nightmare question. It works out for good conversation, that is, until it gets real for people hurting over religion or whatnot Well done. What can I say, except that my "personal" assessment is that the whole Bible was written by man attributing the actions of men to gods of one sort or another. The attribution of "Satan" versus "God" is merely a reflection of the writers opinion of whether the action was good or bad (and differing opinions lead to different theological interpretations). I think the same applies to Moses abuse use of God as the authority for his actions. Of course, it makes as much sense to say there is no God, and men did it all. I see no point in trying to sort out the God stuff from the Man stuff. It becomes a matter of opinion - and that's what got them into hot water in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dB-Paradox Posted February 24, 2010 Author Share Posted February 24, 2010 Well done indeed, Abiyoyo. You just proved that the bible is NOT the word of god. It is NOT the divinely inspired word. As a Liberal Christian, that's okay. But most fundies will fight to the death to protect the bible as the inspired word of god handed down to man. I'm with Shyone on this. Why even care if there's a god behind it? Then you open up a whole new can of worms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagnarus Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 The first time I ever read the Bible, I noticed this inconsistency in Scripture. Who did it? God or Satan. I will say the NIV uses lower case for 'he' in 2 Sam. But, this is the point, here is not an example, not a theory, but proof that the scriptures are not infallible. So, writer error could be a feasible thought into Christian theology. So, what if the writer claimed God lead Samuel to order the slaying of those innocent childrens, and really, it was Satan. So what if the writer claimed that Jesus was sent by God, but actually he was sent by Satan to test the Jews? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 So what if the writer claimed that Jesus was sent by God, but actually he was sent by Satan to test the Jews? That is an awesome question, one that has been in my deep thoughts for a long time. When looking into that I noticed something. The Jews were very enlightened, even to the point where I think they already understood that the Word was flawed. They basically asked Him the same question, and He said, 25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: 26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? 27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges. 28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. So, by my own research and understanding, I have always still seen Christ's character as true. Remember as well that Christ was written during a completely opposite era(s) that these other stories were supposedly written, even if they were recited, copied, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 So, what if the writer claimed God lead Samuel to order the slaying of those innocent childrens, and really, it was Satan. With my example above,wouldn't that be a Biblical consideration? Of course, we could also say by that, possibly, that Satan followed Moses around and gave them all those commandments, or Elijah toasted all those prophets, or Satan made them bears come and maul them kids. So, in essence, Christianity would change forever, if not become ruined, or tainted in some degree. This Chef, is why it is the skeptics favorite area of criticism, and most effective; and also, a fundy's nightmare question. It works out for good conversation, that is, until it gets real for people hurting over religion or whatnot Well done. What can I say, except that my "personal" assessment is that the whole Bible was written by man attributing the actions of men to gods of one sort or another. The attribution of "Satan" versus "God" is merely a reflection of the writers opinion of whether the action was good or bad (and differing opinions lead to different theological interpretations). I think the same applies to Moses abuse use of God as the authority for his actions. Of course, it makes as much sense to say there is no God, and men did it all. I see no point in trying to sort out the God stuff from the Man stuff. It becomes a matter of opinion - and that's what got them into hot water in the first place. I consider myself lucky that I caught these type verses when I read the first time. On the next readings, I kept that in mind throughout the whole thing. That is why I have theories about the law and other acts within the texts. IMO, I don't think it changes things to much other than preachers using one single verse for an entire denominations moral guidance or for sermons. (That drives me nutty) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abiyoyo Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 Well done indeed, Abiyoyo. You just proved that the bible is NOT the word of god. It is NOT the divinely inspired word. As a Liberal Christian, that's okay. But most fundies will fight to the death to protect the bible as the inspired word of god handed down to man. I'm with Shyone on this. Why even care if there's a god behind it? Then you open up a whole new can of worms. See, where I disagree with the fundamentalists is that for me, divinely doesn't necessarily mean that it has to be infallible. I still consider the movement that caused these individuals to write about it divine. Infallible authority within a literal reading, absolutely not; I always tell fundy'd that I contend with, "Isn't that the whole point of Jesus's dialogue with the Jewish leaders, that they were missing the movement because they were magnifying the literal translations? They thought Christ was a devil, they didn't think He was the Messiah, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 IMO, I don't think it changes things to much other than preachers using one single verse for an entire denominations moral guidance or for sermons. (That drives me nutty) I thought it was quite clever in the context of sermons! As long as it wasn't a complete non sequitur, it made for a central theme to the entire sermon. Of course, staking your entire theology on one verse, especially some of the weird ones, is just flaky - if not scary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagnarus Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 So what if the writer claimed that Jesus was sent by God, but actually he was sent by Satan to test the Jews? That is an awesome question, one that has been in my deep thoughts for a long time. When looking into that I noticed something. The Jews were very enlightened, even to the point where I think they already understood that the Word was flawed. They basically asked Him the same question, and He said, 25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: 26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? 27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges. 28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. So, by my own research and understanding, I have always still seen Christ's character as true. Remember as well that Christ was written during a completely opposite era(s) that these other stories were supposedly written, even if they were recited, copied, etc. Interesting point. When I was a Christian, whenever read those verses, I could never shake the fact that I thought they were retarded. This defense is weak upon two counts, 1: have you never heard of double-agents, during world war 2 the allies broke the German encryption, and as a result they knew where the German spies were being dropped in. Because of this they could quickly pick-up the spies immediately after insertion, and turn them to the allied cause, while these spies, by and large, led the Nazi's astray, they would inevitably be give dribs and drabs of useful information, just so that they retained credibility. 2: since when have all the forces opposed to the Christian God been united with one another? The heathen Gods fight with one another all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vixentrox Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 I always thought an interesting argument to mull over is that since Satan & God are in competition and that Satan was supposedly given dominion over the earth as god's adversary, that the Bible itself is only half truths. Satan himself had the true word of god warped and twisted and the result is the Bible. Follow anything in the Bible and you are going to hell with Satan since Satan's master plan relies on deception and what greater deception could there be then messing up the supposed holy book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted February 26, 2010 Share Posted February 26, 2010 That is an awesome question, one that has been in my deep thoughts for a long time. When looking into that I noticed something. The Jews were very enlightened, even to the point where I think they already understood that the Word was flawed. They basically asked Him the same question, and He said, 25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: 26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? 27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges. 28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you. So Oscar the demon is hanging out inside of Ralph when "jesus" appears. He does his magic act and *poof* Oscar leaves Ralph alone. This proves that "jesus" is a good guy? What about Oscar the demon knows that when "jesus" does his magic act he's supposed to leave Ralph since that's part of the act? The statement is that if they're from Satan then they obviously must want demons in everyone so having Oscar leave is actually destroying the Kingdom of Satan, but if your goal is long-term (which we see it is) then putting on a few shows like the ones with Oscar the demon is of little concern. It's a matter of building trust. A con. You lose a little up-front but you take it all back again, and then some, over the course of the scam. So Oscar leaves and he claims he's from "god." But what's the evidence? Does Ralph now have some magical god-spirit? No. He just doesn't have Oscar anymore. Who knows where Oscar went. It doesn't say. Probably just down the road into Tammy. So he mentions others are doing it too. They aren't using some evil power for this. Surely anyone in that position would admit to it. It's not like death would be the result. Nope. Everything checks out with his witnesses. There's nothing here to show there was anything going on. A lot of talk but nothing to test. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefranden Posted February 28, 2010 Share Posted February 28, 2010 God commands the death of innocent children. (1 Samuel 15:3) This is a tough tiddle of the Bible to claim God is omnibenevolent. I have heard people say that the Amalekites where horrible, immoral people; but, then again, the muslims could say the same about polytheist Christians and decide to go try and kill them all, which, they have tried to do. That just leaves it as a blank image for me, not monstrous, just kind of open for further explaining. One could say the Hebrews just gave God the recognition of 'the order'; and we do know that the writers didn't exactly collaborate perfectly all the time like in Kings and Chronicles, so maybe it was miswrote. It was all miswrote. You just think some bits weren't miswrote, and that you can tell the good bits from the bad. Since you have this power, I still don't understand why you don't just rewrite it so that the miswrote bits get fixed. Then, say in 4 or 5 hundred years there could be a gospel according to YoYo sitting on the altar of churches around the world. Why do you think that God gave you this power if not to fix the church with the truth? As it is written, "from him whom much has been given, much is expected." I think you should step up. I Chronicles 21:1 Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel. 2 Samuel 24 Again the anger of the LORD was aroused against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, “Go, number Israel and Judah. The first time I ever read the Bible, I noticed this inconsistency in Scripture. Who did it? God or Satan. I will say the NIV uses lower case for 'he' in 2 Sam. But, this is the point, here is not an example, not a theory, but proof that the scriptures are not infallible. So, writer error could be a feasible thought into Christian theology. 1. So, what if the writer claimed God lead Samuel to order the slaying of those innocent childrens, and really, it was Satan. With my example above,wouldn't that be a Biblical consideration? Of course, we could also say by that, possibly, that Satan followed Moses around and gave them all those commandments, or Elijah toasted all those prophets, or Satan made them bears come and maul them kids. So, in essence, Christianity would change forever, if not become ruined, or tainted in some degree. 2. This Chef, is why it is the skeptics favorite area of criticism, and most effective; and also, a fundy's nightmare question. It works out for good conversation, that is, until it gets real for people hurting over religion or whatnot 1. Sure, what the hell. Satan wrote bits of the bible. Santa wrote bits of the bible. The tooth fairy wrote bits of the bible. I'm not the one trying to believe it here, so it's all the same to me. 2. This is where the rubber meets the road and fails to provide traction. You want to lay the problem of religion at the feet of religion, instead of at the feet of God where it belongs. However, in the end you have to lay the problem on religion, for there is no god to lay it on. But I have to return to my plea. If you actually know the Jesus bits from the Satan bits, you should rewrite the Bible with just the Jesus bits left in -- you know for the good of mankind. It would seem that God can't manage this simple task himself. I think that is because there is no god to manage it. I suppose that you think that people mess up the process, not god. If this is so then you are the culprit, or one of them. You refuse to clean up the text even though you know the good bits from the bad. Poor God, too bad he never learned how to write. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted February 28, 2010 Share Posted February 28, 2010 You've argued that your particular interpretation of the Bible, is inconsistent, not that all possible interpretations are inconsistent, nor that your interpretation is the only possible interpretation. In short, I'm unimpressed, and I don't see why any currently professing Christian should be impressed by your argument, other than the fact that you brought up some of the atrocities of the bible. Fair enough dagnarus, if you could put on your apologist hat for a moment, can you show how he is wrong? FWIW, this is how I've always seen it. If Jesus is god and if god doesn't change, how then is Jesus not also the vengeful god of the OT? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagnarus Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 You've argued that your particular interpretation of the Bible, is inconsistent, not that all possible interpretations are inconsistent, nor that your interpretation is the only possible interpretation. In short, I'm unimpressed, and I don't see why any currently professing Christian should be impressed by your argument, other than the fact that you brought up some of the atrocities of the bible. Fair enough dagnarus, if you could put on your apologist hat for a moment, can you show how he is wrong? FWIW, this is how I've always seen it. If Jesus is god and if god doesn't change, how then is Jesus not also the vengeful god of the OT? Why? Jesus is the vengeful God of the old testament, or according to your standard fundamentalist righteous, that's what makes it consistent. Edit: I read your comment again. I'm fairly certain that you misunderstood me, the op was trying to suggest that Jesus couldn't possibly be the God of the Old Testament, according to his interpretation. Personally I have no problem accepting that Jesus could be the God of the Old Testament, at least based upon the verses which he showed, I can personally see the Jesus shown in the Gospels as being willing to order the murder of children, at least the murder of Children who didn't submit to his teaching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted March 1, 2010 Share Posted March 1, 2010 You've argued that your particular interpretation of the Bible, is inconsistent, not that all possible interpretations are inconsistent, nor that your interpretation is the only possible interpretation. In short, I'm unimpressed, and I don't see why any currently professing Christian should be impressed by your argument, other than the fact that you brought up some of the atrocities of the bible. Fair enough dagnarus, if you could put on your apologist hat for a moment, can you show how he is wrong? FWIW, this is how I've always seen it. If Jesus is god and if god doesn't change, how then is Jesus not also the vengeful god of the OT? Why? Jesus is the vengeful God of the old testament, or according to your standard fundamentalist righteous, that's what makes it consistent. Edit: I read your comment again. I'm fairly certain that you misunderstood me, the op was trying to suggest that Jesus couldn't possibly be the God of the Old Testament, according to his interpretation. Personally I have no problem accepting that Jesus could be the God of the Old Testament, at least based upon the verses which he showed, I can personally see the Jesus shown in the Gospels as being willing to order the murder of children, at least the murder of Children who didn't submit to his teaching. I see. It seems I misread the OP's claims, thus confusing your response to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts