This is not an attack, but it is pointless to argue/discuss with religious believers.

Remove all ads!

Okay I misstated that, you are right.

According to the Bible, Jehovah is not against the killing of innocent people, nor is he against genocide.

It was just an extreme characterization of the God that people are told to believe, as recorded by the Bible. many people conveniently forget parts of the Bible, or state that God is justified in his vengeance and violence.

 

Shadowed Assassin:

Actually, I'll admit I'm not that familiar with it. If I did miss something, feel free to enlighten me, but I assure you, it was unintentional.

He couldn't have just killed the Pharoah, because that wouldn't have freed His people. The next Pharoah would have come up and He'd be in the same position. Unless you propose that God should have killed every successive Pharoah until He got one He liked. I dare say that would have been a bit bloodier, though. And when did He kill the righteous?

If you actually read the Bible, though, you would have known that, when God flooded the earth, He could only find on good group of people, and He did save them. That was Noah's family. He flooded the earth specifically because it had gotten so bad. Similarly with Sodom and Gomorah. He looked for good people in the cities, and even agreed that if He could find only 5 good people, He would spare the cities, but He didn't. He found Lot and his family (a total of 4) and that was it. Now there probably were some children in those cities, but what makes you assume that children are good and innocent? From my experience, children of rotten parents are often rotten themselves. Not too long ago, there was a case down in Florida where a bunch of kids decided to stone a poor homeless man to death just for fun. I think one of them was 6 years old!

I'll assume you're talking about my statement on child sacrifice? What's the issue of mistake? We have modern archielogical evidence that they engaged in the practice. Either that, or you're talking about my 'definition of good', well, that's not something that you can prove right or wrong, now is it?

Susipaisti:
God wasn't just trying to get Pharoah to set the Israelites free. If He wanted to do that, and was willing to intercede with man's will, He could have just made Pharoah say 'yes'. The issue wasn't just Pharoah, though, it was the people of Egypt, as well as the Israelites themselves. He was setting things up for a lot more than just freeing the Israelites from slavery.

Proteus:

I think you misunderstood my post. Free will in and of itself isn't evil. If Adam and Eve had chosen not to eat from the Tree, they would have done good, but still have done it by their own free will. The issue is one of choice. Anything that is disobeying God is sin. However, if there is nothing that is disobeying God, then there is no choice, there is only to obey God. Therefore, in order for free will to exist in anything but a theoretical sense, there must be the option of evil.

In the sense that God is responsible for everything but the actions of man, then yes, God kills the righteous. He does it with disease, storms, floods, and all kinds of other things, but everyone has to die at some point. Death by natural events is not neccessarily punishment. Other than that, I don't know when God killed the righteous, or ordered their deaths. I'm using righteous instead of innocent because no one is innocent, so I don't like using it. I think we mean about the same thing, though. As for genocide, you're right that God has commanded genocide a very few times. As I have pointed out, however, that is not a judgement given lightly, nor does He condone it when we take it upon ourselves to issue that judgement.

I defy you to show that He isn't. And don't you dare use that modern folly that any form of violence is entirely unacceptable in any circumstances. I support the use of the death penalty on those that have earned it. I support wars to overthrow madmen that torture their people for no good reason, like Saddam. It may not have been executed well, but I support that it happened.

 

How about New Testament as not so squeaky peaceful.

matthew 10:34
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
matthew 10:35
For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
matthew 10:36
And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

luke 12:51
Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

luke 22:36
He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

revelation 19:11
And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

QUESTION

Whereas I understand the falibility of humans, how can the word of god, the delivered perfect word of god, as supposedly seen in these quotes, be so open to what you are no doubt going to claim as misinterpretation?

Surely the essense of god is that god is not fallible?

Then surely the intent behind god's teachings is to get god's word across, so we can, through freewill, come to believe.

And yet there is so much room for misinterpretation in (so much of the bible, and in fact much defence of the bible seems based on the "open to misinterpretation" claim) what is essentially a learning tool from god, and delivered from personally god is a flawed tool.

Is god therefore fallible if it hasn't made a tool that works 100% correctly 100% of the time?

[ April 14, 2007, 00:46: Message edited by: kin hell ]

 

I'm not against or for religion, just thought that perhaps you all would like to see this link: http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com

Opinions on it?

 

@Goli Ironhead

I have only surface skimmed your link as yet but the immediate obvious conclusion I sprung to was

all amputees are evil

I imagine this idea may be discussed somewhere in your link's pages, but I haven't got to it yet.

Anyway thanks for the link, I am really looking forward to the next set of explanations.

 

Whether you elevate Humans abouve God or degrade God below humans, it is still pride.

Religious conversion is not always a sudden change, but moral growth towards God's will. AS you learn the faith, these morals will grow to be closer to God's will. That is how it works.

Any such records of the Lord destroying people were for their own sins. In the account of Sodom and Gamorah, the only righteous people that God found were Lot and his family, who were told to flee and not look back. Lot's wife disobeyed and was caught in the destruction. Even the societies that the people of Israel were told to destroy were considered evil beyond their means to redeem.

The key point of humility, but I see that so seldom here on the boards.

Actually, I never heard of any innocents slaughtered by God. Anyone that died in such cases earned their mortal death.

God Created man in His own Image (Genesis 1:26-27) and we as humans are His children (Acts 17:28-29). This shows us as God's crowning achievement.

There is, and likely just like us. But that's in a scripture specifically to the Mormons...

The only proof you have that I am who I claim to be is my word. How is that any different?

Seeking to please God is the first step in Christian moral development. Many don't progress beyond that. Eventually we learn how we feel when we do Good, and that's how we learn to be good for the sake of Goodness. It's not Hollow, just how we learn to be what God wants us to be...

That was a punishment for the families of the children. They were not accountable, and thus proceed to the next world free of the blood and sins of their fathers. They were spared lives of socialized evil.

Again, in those places, morality had been lost. They were mrecifully spared a life of socialized evil, and thus free to proceed to the next world minus the blood and sins of the culture they came from.

God did not harden the Pharoah's Heart, it was the pharoah himself that did it.

Without evil, good would be a no-brainer, and there would be no alternatives. Withour options, there is no choice. Choice is required for free will...

During that time, the Lord's people were still learning to have faith and not to commit greivous sins.

This is the people being taught what God wants them to do. This is a lot harder then simply don't lie, steal, kill...

Thank you. Some cases, death is a merciful end to a painful illness or accident.

Goli Ironhead: Am I to understand that they demand that God will perform miracles before they will worship him? If you look at the book of Job, in the old testament, Job was subjected to all manner of trials. Through those trials, Job was strengthened. The Amputees, face such trials. Further, we are charged with caring for the poor and the needy. How can we do that if there are no poor or needy?

 

Psst....Gnarff....there's a difference between a humanist and a secular humanist.

 

Drew, it's pointless. Gnarf is the kind of person this topic was started about. He's stuck in his ways and will never even bother to try to understand other points of view. That's why I didn't respond to his last post. Reading it only made me realize that his ignorance is one he chooses for himself.

 

Ahh, Humanism...the rational, thinking human being - the individual in the act of self-awarness. What could be more pleasing to God than to see His creation imitating the divine? Jesus taught that every man/woman has self-worth; that even the evil men were worth the effort to save; and that we are all, in many ways, the prodigal sons and daughters of the divine. Within all mankind is thought to dwell the divine spark of the Creator, which only requires the nurturing and cultivation of theology and religion, Literature and history, philosophy and the arts. "What a piece of work is a man!" (Shakespeare in Hamlet). A being filled with free-will, independence and self-determination, inspired by the grand accomplishments of his Creator God.

But wait, isn't man imperfect, covered in the sins of his origins, for didn't he reject Eden, for the sake of a woman? Aren't they fallen from Grace and the sight of the Creator God? Man was banished to exist in a misrable world, which is ruled by Satan and separated from the goodness of his God. Surely man cannot "think" his way out of such deep sin; surely he cannot "rationalize" away all that he has lost in the Great Fall. Woe is man. Can I have a "woe is man" from the congregation? please!

Shakespeare, in Act I of Julius Caesar, says: "Men are sometime masters of their own fates." But the object lesson of the play, Julius Caesar, is that man often does not get it quite right, despite his best and noble efforts; and he does tend to make a mess of things. As Cassius quips, "the fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but within ourselves..." And he hardly suspects how true, regarding his own efforts, that his comment foreshadows his later failures in the unfolding events of the play and eventually it seals his own "fate" which is his doom.

Nevertheless, a thoughtful man seeks to be the master of his own fate, as a flower seeks out the sun; with his qualities and talents, which give him the potential to become the "glass of fashion and the mould of form," in which he is more pleasing to his peers and God alike. Ophelia shouts in describing Hamlet: "most sovereign reason!"

Humanism is often connected to the Renaissance, with its recovery of pagan texts, literature and philosophy; its notion of systematic learning and use of rhetoric, and above all reason, which elevated man's dignity and self-worth.

Shakespeare, as a man and a major artistic force of the Renaissance, probed the notions of "self-fashioning" and the psychological need of man to have a degree of self-determination and having a hand in his own "fate." It is in opposition to the modern notion of man as a purely social and economic construct, often a contruct of social forces beyond his control. It is a notion which is dehumanizing, rather than "humanizing." It seems that in the modern age the more we try to grasp our humanity, the more elusive it becomes.

In my opinion, humanism tends to redeem man more so than it condemns him. It is true that it tends to make society a little more secular in approach - men tend to be a bit more independent once they put their skills and God-given brains to work, rather than relying on miracles to solve problems. Please note that I do not disbelieve in miracles and I believe that they have occurred in Christian history. But humanism is also religion without dogma; and possibly religion without the need for dehuamnizing oppression, witch-hunts, inquisitions and "Holy" wars.

 

If more people thought like you, there wouldnt be so much violence and unnecessary death.

The fact is, God doesnt exist, and there are only people attempting to do his will - namely Good. But they get it horribly wrong, because they rely on a two thousand year old book, with tales of times when it was routine for an invading army to slaughter everything except virginal women, and then rape those and keep them for themselves (Gods armies were commanded to do this, what did the virgins do wrong to earn gods wrath?).

In this day and age, we should accept the Bible as a source of some good morals, but also some really outdated and inapplicable ones. Whoever doesnt eat pork for religious reasons (as long as it has been properly prepared) is being really silly.

One day I hope more people will see the irony behind a god that claims to be the only source of all good, that is quite happy to murder people he could have saved.

 

And believing that humans are the product of a long series of chance mutations, each with the odds stacked massively against it, which started by the remotest chance that out of billions of plants, earth was just right for life, doesnt require blind faith?

 

Mongerman, the chances for life to exist in an extraterrestial form have been addressed earler. And knowing the odds on that you'd then be able to extrapolate that the chances for advanced life. And then you can take that and realize that, holy crap, its a virtual certainty. Oh, and it's a whole lot more than billions.

Does anybody else here pray for more stringent education standards?

 

Gnarff:

This is from www.biblegateway.com, emphasis mine:

NOG:

Elaborate, please. What was God trying to do, then, and what was he setting things up for?

And do you think killing the firstborns was justified?

 

Child sacrifice involves murdering children. Ordering your chosen people to slaughter entire populations involves murdering children as well. So does god hate himself?

 

Actually, they haven't. Not only are they all Semitic peoples just as the Jews were, but they've all been absorbed by other groups and really don't exist, anymore. Now, if you are talking about the modern inhabitants of the Middle East, they actually got along with the Jews within their borders better than Europe did.....until after WW2 when we punished Palestine for the sins of Germany by taking their land.

 

Drew,
Thank you for the history lesson(no sarcasm). That's exactly the kind of thing I've been trying to push. Make sure you know what you're talking about beforehand.
Chimera, and what do you believe? I see you railing against christianity, but hear nothing about your beliefs. I don't have a problem accepting that entire groups of people, including children, might need to be destroyed from an ends justify the means perspective. I couldn't do it, because I don't accept an ends justifies the means outlook in my life. I couldn't kill a baby, I don't see how a good person could(for those of you that may bring up my pro-choice stand on abortion you need to realize I am wholly against abortion, but I support a woman's right to choose. It's not my place to choose for her.). I only want people to ask more questions about their religion. You can question your religion without questioning your faith in God. Religion is just a way to limit yourself.

As for the assertion that humanism is like a religion I have to disagree. Some people may go as far as to treat it the same way, but it is a philosophy. Now I consider myself a humanist, because after I first heard about humanism I did some research and realized that many of my views are shared in the philosophy of humanism. I didn't change anything about who I was to be a humanist. Same thing goes for me being an agnostic. I didn't know I was agnostic, didn't know what agnostic was when I came to those conclusions about myself. I only later learned that my views and those of agnosticism were very much the same.

Here's a little history on how I came to my ultimate decision. I went to a baptist preschool and attended sunday school every week until I started having doubts. I was 7 when I stopped going. It just wasn't making sense to me(I stopped believing in Santa and the easter bunny when I was 5 or 6). I didn't start thinking about it again until I was 9. At that time I was in a magnet school for the gifted, the first here, and religion came up in the program (don't remember why). I didn't come to terms with my beliefs until I was in highschool, and even then I was still a bit unsure. The adults in the bible belt, for the most part, were no help. As a child questioning their faith, well it wasn't fun. I ended up having to do a lot of reading. Went to different churches and temples with friends, and just learned. Only one religion ever felt the least bit right to me, and that was buddhism(I hadn't ever heard of Jainism yet). The few atheists I talked to, while not as venomous as the christians, didn't help me in the least either. Remove the emotion from it and the were just as bad as the christians. I knew I wasn't atheist almost right away, because there were just too many questions that they couldn't answer. Eventually I realized that I couldn't be sure that anyone was right, nor could I be sure that they were wrong. I came to the conclusion that, right now and for the forseeable future, there was no way to know and I'm okay with that. I realized that the only thing I could do was learn what others believed and why. So that's what I've been doing, learning about what everyone else believes.

If I seem a little bitter at times it's because of the crap I had to grow up with as a child with so many questions for people that looked upon those questions with anger, ignorance, and acting as if they're superior. I couldn't get a straight answer. More often I got scolded for questioning god(never from my parents as my mother[deist] is accepting, and I still haven't told my father[baptist]). As an adult it's lightened some, mostly because I'm careful who I engage in religious discussions. As a salesman I have to put up with the kind of people that want harry potter banned on a regular basis and, unfortunately, I deal with them more often than the accepting christians, and far more often than people like myself.

 

Well, it is not a religion, but, and I'm sure you have researched this point, many Christians of the Renaissance were humanists, including Thomas More and Erasmus, as well as many of the Italian Renaissance humanisitic philosophers. Some may have broken with the dogma of the Chruch, but many remained devout Christians.

 

I'd definitely agree there. Breaking with church dogma doesn't make you any less christian. The Renaissance was dominated by free thinking christians.

I was wondering, why is it that there is so much fighting between Christians, Jews, and Muslims? After all these 3 religions all descend from a common religion, brownie points if you can name it, and they all worship the same God. The only differences are how they worship and who their prophet is.

 

Shadow Assassin, it's because everyone else's religion is "false" and theirs is the "true" one.

[ April 14, 2007, 23:04: Message edited by: Goli Ironhead ]

 

This is plain awful. It is outrageous.