The Word Of The Lord: Loving Curses And Righteous Dung-Smearing

[Gus]

 

 

I ran across this edifying passage in Malachi last night and I thought I should share.  

 

For some time I wouldn't read the Bible after my deconversion since it was associated with too many negative emotions.  But over the past couple years I have been going through it again.  I am repeatedly amazed at how many times Holy Writ provides evidence of its own imperfection and (in)humanity.  Perfect example:

 

²If you will not listen, if you will not lay it to heart to give glory to my name, says the Lord of hosts, then I will send the curse on you and I will curse your blessings; indeed I have already cursed them, because you do not lay it to heart. ³I will rebuke your offspring, and spread dung on your faces, the dung of your offerings, and I will put you out of my presence.

Malachi 2:2-3

 

Of course, God is Love and Malachi knows this.  He here reminds of the definition of love in 1 Cor 13-- love is patient, kind, keeps no record of wrongs, and occasionally requires some cursing of people and facial dung-smearing.  Likewise, we can create a more complete list of the fruit of the Spirit (cf. Gal 5:22-23)-- love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, self-control, cursing people, and smearing dung on them.  

 

I honestly don't think I could come up with better reasons for rejecting the Bible than the ones it provides...

Hi Aggie

 

 

First, if the Bible was a source of negative emotions, my initial thought was that someone used the Bible against you, probably picking out certain scripture to make you feel bad. If that was the case then I am sorry that is what you experienced.

 

With regards to the verses you have used, for some reason you have cut out the very first line on your post, which is hugely important as it tells us who it is actually written to.

 

The first line is 'And now you priests, this is a warning for you (and then the rest as you have posted).

 

This is so important because the priests where the religious leaders of the day. Like the priests, bishops, deacons, pastors etc. we have now. It was not aimed at the general populace.

 

In the verses before we even know why God was angry. It was because the priests, those who proclaimed to follow God and lead by example, where giving poor offerings such as blind or maimed cattle and even ones 'gained through violence' (whatever that was).

 

It then goes on to say that these priests where leading people astray with poor teaching and generally bad behaviour.

 

Like when religious leaders do that today, we get angry expect them to have a higher level of responsibly.

 

The reference to smearing dung on their faces is pure sarcasm. Their offering was supposed to be cleaned of faeces, but they were not doing this and giving God the scraps and then keeping the best for themselves. God was saying he was going to rub their faces in it.

 

God gets particularly angry with people in positions of authority who are meant to represent him, and yet are corrupt and burden people with religion or lead them astray.

 

Jesus only got angry with religious leaders calling them a brood of vipers and hypocrites.

That is what this passage is about.

 

 

Gus,

 

I don't think your exposition helps.  I think you missed my point actually.

 

I think that it's a fair reading that we have metaphorical dung-wiping being talked about here.  However, the crassness of the imagery shows God's degree of contempt.  What he is planning to is comparable to such disrespectful and insulting behavior.  

 

I left out the prior verse because I think it doesn't make a difference-- God is threatening to curse and otherwise condemn people he thinks are showing insufficient glory to his name.  This is petty, jealous, in violation of the golden rule, in violation of Jesus' command not to curse people, unkind, unloving, and generally in poor taste.

 

As I'm sure you know, God curses, condemns, torments, and smites vast multitudes of non-priests in the Bible. He supposedly cursed the entire human race because of Adam's horrific crime of fruit-eating, flooded the entire earth, and cursed the entire nation of Israel (and numerous other nations of well) acting on the extremely unjust principle of corporate guilt.  He sent plagues, famines, wars, etc., etc.  If true, this would represent the torment of millions of children-- as well as millions of non-priestly people who wouldn't have been behaving in ways that God didn't like if He hadn't cursed them all for Adam's sin in the first place.  Of course, he also keeps an eternal Inquisition going in hell apparently.

 

In short, God would have had a better claim to being "Love" if he had been literally wiping dung.  

 

The good news is not that Jesus died for our sins, but that there is no such God who goes around smiting, cursing, killing and torturing people in the first place.  

 

With all due respect, I feel you are not seeing what I have said. The dung wiping may sound crass, but he didn't actually do it, he was saying this as they would know what it was they had done. Given God an offering that was basically, wiping dung in Gods face.

The issue is not really about the offering but about their attitude.

Jesus did get angry, and as I said he was not very forging tot he priests and Pharisees who had a similar attitude.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

What kind of an all powerful being craves glory from created beings?

A very mis-understood perception of God I feel.

 

He does not crave our glory.

 

One way to look at it is if you have children, and you are good parent, you want them to love, honour and respect you as their parents. If they don't, you can’t guide them, you can’t teach them, you can’t help them, and you can’t have relationship,

 

It the same with God and how he feels towards his children.

 

Poor analogy, Gus.  I'm okay with my son favoring his mother over me.  I'm not going to command him, "Thou shalt have no other parents before me." 

 

You may not say it in those words, and anyway his mother is still his parent.

But how would you feel if your son favoured someones elses parents entirely and had no honour for you or his mother?

 

If I had created that situation, as yahweh did, I'd have no one to blame but myself.

[Gus]

 

 

Gus, how do you know that your way of thinking is right, and ours is wrong.

 

And when you answer, recite what you write to yourself.  If your words were coming from someone of another religion's and wanting you to convert to theirs, would YOU be convinced?

I am not saying anyone is wrong

 

I was giving an explanation of a verse which was brought up. I am not trying to convert anyone, I am just saying this is the meaning of the verse in question. It is up to you if you agree or not.

 

 

You've said to MM

 

"A very mis-understood perception of God I feel."

 

Implying that he is wrong.  Therefore your statement "I'm not saying anyone is wrong" is a lie.

 

However, I'm not firing any hostility at you yet.  That would depend on your next answer.

 

If you were living with Moses or with Samuel, as part of the Israelites, and god ordered you to do something.  Would you do it.

 

I said 'I feel' it is a mis-understood concept, I did not say he was wrong.

So no, it was not a lie. That's quite a bold statment to just come out with.

I may not always clarify my points in ways everyone understands, but I am not lying.

 

With regard to your question, or should that be threat, I simply don't know. It's an impossible question to answer.

[mymistake]

 

 

I said 'I feel' it is a mis-understood concept, I did not say he was wrong.

So no, it was not a lie. That's quite a bold statment to just come out with.

I may not always clarify my points in ways everyone understands, but I am not lying.

 

With regard to your question, or should that be threat, I simply don't know. It's an impossible question to answer.

 

 

In my opinion you did not lie.  However you believe contradictory apologetics so you can't help it if your explanations are contradictory.  You are not using critical thinking and you are not being objective.  Christian theology falls apart under examination at almost every step.  That is why Christians have to retreat to "I am so confused that I have to ask my pastor" or "It's a mystery" or "It's a test" or "Just take it on faith" and so on.

 

I don't expect you to change.  When I was in your shoes I could not change on my own.

[sdelsolray]

 

Gus, how do you know that your way of thinking is right, and ours is wrong.

 

And when you answer, recite what you write to yourself.  If your words were coming from someone of another religion's and wanting you to convert to theirs, would YOU be convinced?

I am not saying anyone is wrong

 

I was giving an explanation of a verse which was brought up. I am not trying to convert anyone, I am just saying this is the meaning of the verse in question. It is up to you if you agree or not.

 

Instead, you are just strongly implying and inferring that you (and only you) are correct.

 

What's the difference?  

[sdelsolray]

Gus, you project human emotion (anger) upon two of your claimed deities, God and Jesus.  Do you project other human emotions upon them?  If so, which ones?

[Roz]

 

 

 

Gus, how do you know that your way of thinking is right, and ours is wrong.

 

And when you answer, recite what you write to yourself.  If your words were coming from someone of another religion's and wanting you to convert to theirs, would YOU be convinced?

I am not saying anyone is wrong

 

I was giving an explanation of a verse which was brought up. I am not trying to convert anyone, I am just saying this is the meaning of the verse in question. It is up to you if you agree or not.

 

 

You've said to MM

 

"A very mis-understood perception of God I feel."

 

Implying that he is wrong.  Therefore your statement "I'm not saying anyone is wrong" is a lie.

 

However, I'm not firing any hostility at you yet.  That would depend on your next answer.

 

If you were living with Moses or with Samuel, as part of the Israelites, and god ordered you to do something.  Would you do it.

 

I said 'I feel' it is a mis-understood concept, I did not say he was wrong.

So no, it was not a lie. That's quite a bold statment to just come out with.

I may not always clarify my points in ways everyone understands, but I am not lying.

 

With regard to your question, or should that be threat, I simply don't know. It's an impossible question to answer.

 

 

So you're not saying he's wrong, you're just 'feeling' he's wrong.  Then I'm saying and feeling that you're a liar.

 

Would you do something like this if you were face to face with your god:

 

Num 31:

¹⁷ Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, ¹⁸ but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

[Roz]

Let's see if the christian is more moral than his god

[Gus]

 

 

Gus, how do you know that your way of thinking is right, and ours is wrong.

 

And when you answer, recite what you write to yourself.  If your words were coming from someone of another religion's and wanting you to convert to theirs, would YOU be convinced?

I am not saying anyone is wrong

 

I was giving an explanation of a verse which was brought up. I am not trying to convert anyone, I am just saying this is the meaning of the verse in question. It is up to you if you agree or not.

 

Instead, you are just strongly implying and inferring that you (and only you) are correct.

 

What's the difference?  

This is getting a bit ridiculous to be honest. I can't post a reply on here and then not get accused that I think only I am correct? 

If that is you're thinking then you have to apply that to every single post on these forums.

[Guest Marty]

 

 

 

Gus, how do you know that your way of thinking is right, and ours is wrong.

 

And when you answer, recite what you write to yourself.  If your words were coming from someone of another religion's and wanting you to convert to theirs, would YOU be convinced?

I am not saying anyone is wrong

 

I was giving an explanation of a verse which was brought up. I am not trying to convert anyone, I am just saying this is the meaning of the verse in question. It is up to you if you agree or not.

 

Instead, you are just strongly implying and inferring that you (and only you) are correct.

 

What's the difference?  

This is getting a bit ridiculous to be honest. I can't post a reply on here and then not get accused that I think only I am correct? 

If that is you're thinking then you have to apply that to every single post on these forums.

 

 

Because, in case you haven't noticed, this is an EX christian site.  Most of us know the bible better than christians and we are very tired of continually hearing that we are not understanding the bible correctly, or we are taking something out of context, or that we do not have the proper outlook on some theological point.  We also have read the bible cover to cover more than once (not just the feel good verses the church tells you to read) so we are aware of everything it says.

 

Just about every christ bot that comes here thinks we have "backslid" because we weren't in the right church, or we didn't hear the right message, and if we just listen to what your thoughts are, we will see the light and go back to christianity.  There is nothing you can say to us that we haven't already heard, thought about, thought through, and moved on.  

 

If you want to be taken seriously here, stop quoting a book that was written in the Bronze and Iron Age and listen to what people here are actually saying.  Stop trying to use this place as a soapbox for your religious thoughts.  This is our EX christian site, and while you are welcome to be here and take part in discussions, do not think you can sway us with bible verses.  If we wanted to hear scripture and a christian perspective, we would go to church.

[mymistake]

 

 

This is getting a bit ridiculous to be honest. I can't post a reply on here and then not get accused that I think only I am correct? 

If that is you're thinking then you have to apply that to every single post on these forums.

 

 

 

There would be a lot less hostility if you choose to not talk about religion.  If you were (or are) a meat eater would you join a vegan forum to talk about eating meat?  The vast majority of the members here have tried your religion, seen it from the inside and found it wanting.

[Aggie]

 

 

 

I ran across this edifying passage in Malachi last night and I thought I should share.  

 

For some time I wouldn't read the Bible after my deconversion since it was associated with too many negative emotions.  But over the past couple years I have been going through it again.  I am repeatedly amazed at how many times Holy Writ provides evidence of its own imperfection and (in)humanity.  Perfect example:

 

²If you will not listen, if you will not lay it to heart to give glory to my name, says the Lord of hosts, then I will send the curse on you and I will curse your blessings; indeed I have already cursed them, because you do not lay it to heart. ³I will rebuke your offspring, and spread dung on your faces, the dung of your offerings, and I will put you out of my presence.

Malachi 2:2-3

 

Of course, God is Love and Malachi knows this.  He here reminds of the definition of love in 1 Cor 13-- love is patient, kind, keeps no record of wrongs, and occasionally requires some cursing of people and facial dung-smearing.  Likewise, we can create a more complete list of the fruit of the Spirit (cf. Gal 5:22-23)-- love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, self-control, cursing people, and smearing dung on them.  

 

I honestly don't think I could come up with better reasons for rejecting the Bible than the ones it provides...

Hi Aggie

 

 

First, if the Bible was a source of negative emotions, my initial thought was that someone used the Bible against you, probably picking out certain scripture to make you feel bad. If that was the case then I am sorry that is what you experienced.

 

With regards to the verses you have used, for some reason you have cut out the very first line on your post, which is hugely important as it tells us who it is actually written to.

 

The first line is 'And now you priests, this is a warning for you (and then the rest as you have posted).

 

This is so important because the priests where the religious leaders of the day. Like the priests, bishops, deacons, pastors etc. we have now. It was not aimed at the general populace.

 

In the verses before we even know why God was angry. It was because the priests, those who proclaimed to follow God and lead by example, where giving poor offerings such as blind or maimed cattle and even ones 'gained through violence' (whatever that was).

 

It then goes on to say that these priests where leading people astray with poor teaching and generally bad behaviour.

 

Like when religious leaders do that today, we get angry expect them to have a higher level of responsibly.

 

The reference to smearing dung on their faces is pure sarcasm. Their offering was supposed to be cleaned of faeces, but they were not doing this and giving God the scraps and then keeping the best for themselves. God was saying he was going to rub their faces in it.

 

God gets particularly angry with people in positions of authority who are meant to represent him, and yet are corrupt and burden people with religion or lead them astray.

 

Jesus only got angry with religious leaders calling them a brood of vipers and hypocrites.

That is what this passage is about.

 

 

Gus,

 

I don't think your exposition helps.  I think you missed my point actually.

 

I think that it's a fair reading that we have metaphorical dung-wiping being talked about here.  However, the crassness of the imagery shows God's degree of contempt.  What he is planning to is comparable to such disrespectful and insulting behavior.  

 

I left out the prior verse because I think it doesn't make a difference-- God is threatening to curse and otherwise condemn people he thinks are showing insufficient glory to his name.  This is petty, jealous, in violation of the golden rule, in violation of Jesus' command not to curse people, unkind, unloving, and generally in poor taste.

 

As I'm sure you know, God curses, condemns, torments, and smites vast multitudes of non-priests in the Bible. He supposedly cursed the entire human race because of Adam's horrific crime of fruit-eating, flooded the entire earth, and cursed the entire nation of Israel (and numerous other nations of well) acting on the extremely unjust principle of corporate guilt.  He sent plagues, famines, wars, etc., etc.  If true, this would represent the torment of millions of children-- as well as millions of non-priestly people who wouldn't have been behaving in ways that God didn't like if He hadn't cursed them all for Adam's sin in the first place.  Of course, he also keeps an eternal Inquisition going in hell apparently.

 

In short, God would have had a better claim to being "Love" if he had been literally wiping dung.  

 

The good news is not that Jesus died for our sins, but that there is no such God who goes around smiting, cursing, killing and torturing people in the first place.  

 

With all due respect, I feel you are not seeing what I have said. The dung wiping may sound crass, but he didn't actually do it, he was saying this as they would know what it was they had done. Given God an offering that was basically, wiping dung in Gods face.

The issue is not really about the offering but about their attitude.

Jesus did get angry, and as I said he was not very forging tot he priests and Pharisees who had a similar attitude.

 

 

Gus,

 

Interesting dialogue here!  As mentioned, I'm fine with accepting that your interpretation of metaphorical dung-wiping is going on.  I don't think that's an unreasonable position at all.

 

The point that you are not addressing is why is it OK for God to act in ways that we normally label cruel and sadistic.  Can improperly sacrificing really hurt God?  Does supposed disrespect towards him warrant the abusive behavior that he engages in so frequently?

 

Your reference to Jesus doesn't help IMO.  His threats towards the Pharisees (and others) of eternal torture and the like are also not loving and not moral.  It's true that at his finer points in Scripture, God does not act like a petty, vindictive, vengeful tyrant.  Jesus words and deeds are often noble in the New Testament (not Revelation so much, but in the Gospels anyway).  But in many, many places God makes an utter mockery of the golden rule and surpasses the cruelest dictators in history for his cruelty and malice.

 

My original post brought out the definition of love in 1 Cor 13 and a list of the "fruit of the spirit."  My overall point is that God, who is supposed to be love, does not demonstrate that he is love based on the definition of 1 Cor 13. If God is impatient, unkind, envious, boastful, proud, dishonors others, is self-seeking, is easily angered, keeps records of wrongs, delights in inflicting evil, does not protect, etc.-- can he seriously be considered loving?  Can God curse people and insult them in crass ways and still be loving (as in Malachi)?  It seems like it's just an exercise in word games to assert that he can.   And, of course, if one does not have love-- so it goes-- one is nothing.  

 

Also, if God has serious deficits in love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, or self-control, can he have his own spirit?  Again, the mental gymnastics required to try to assert such a thing seem way too strained to accept. 

 

Glad you came for a visit.  Maybe some day you'll be able to let go of all the cognitive dissonance that I imagine is bouncing around in your head.  (I've been an unbeliever for several years now-- but so wished I had been saved from it early on in life...)

[Castiel233]

Horrible Bible verses don’t disprove God, but they should bloody well keep believers awake at night.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

 

 

Gus, how do you know that your way of thinking is right, and ours is wrong.

 

And when you answer, recite what you write to yourself.  If your words were coming from someone of another religion's and wanting you to convert to theirs, would YOU be convinced?

I am not saying anyone is wrong

 

I was giving an explanation of a verse which was brought up. I am not trying to convert anyone, I am just saying this is the meaning of the verse in question. It is up to you if you agree or not.

 

Instead, you are just strongly implying and inferring that you (and only you) are correct.

 

What's the difference?  

This is getting a bit ridiculous to be honest. I can't post a reply on here and then not get accused that I think only I am correct? 

If that is you're thinking then you have to apply that to every single post on these forums.

 

 

The bolded text is the wording that I think was the issue here.  There can be no one interpretation of scripture.  There is the intended meaning, which is all but unknowable now, and then there are the multitude of meanings that readers have interpreted over the centuries.  If you were to say instead "this is my interpretation of the meaning of the verse" it would be less easy to accuse you of claiming you are right and others are wrong.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Nope, it means means what it says. I thought I had explained what it meant?

Why should we believe that this verse means what it says when you have pointed out, yourself, a number of other verses that don't mean what they say?

[sdelsolray]

 

 

 

Gus, how do you know that your way of thinking is right, and ours is wrong.

 

And when you answer, recite what you write to yourself.  If your words were coming from someone of another religion's and wanting you to convert to theirs, would YOU be convinced?

I am not saying anyone is wrong

 

I was giving an explanation of a verse which was brought up. I am not trying to convert anyone, I am just saying this is the meaning of the verse in question. It is up to you if you agree or not.

 

Instead, you are just strongly implying and inferring that you (and only you) are correct.

 

What's the difference?  

This is getting a bit ridiculous to be honest. I can't post a reply on here and then not get accused that I think only I am correct? 

If that is you're thinking then you have to apply that to every single post on these forums.

 

 

You should practice your feigned martyr complex some more.  I'm not buying it.

 

“I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence.  I much prefer history – true or feigned– with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers.  I think that many confuse applicability with allegory, but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.”

 

JRR Tolkien, Preface to Fellowship of the Ring